Viacom Still Can't Figure Out Which Video Clips Actually Infringed On YouTube

from the doesn't-that-say-something dept

As we get ready to see more details about the filings from both Viacom and Google in the YouTube fight, Eric Goldman notes that Viacom has dropped another 187 videos from its complaint. This isn't the first time either. Late last year, Viacom dropped a bunch of videos from the lawsuit after realizing that many had been uploaded by Viacom employees. As Goldman notes, the fact that it's taken Viacom three years to even realize that some of these videos don't belong in the lawsuit is incredibly telling. If it takes Viacom three years to realize that such videos may or may not infringe, how is it reasonable to expect Google/YouTube to be able to make snap judgments and automatically know what infringes on all the videos uploaded to its site? Viacom, of course, is just claiming that it's removing these 187 videos to "streamline" the issues. However, considering that there are 63,000 videos involved in the lawsuit, it's not like this makes any difference at all. Basically, Viacom knows that it has highly questionable claims on those videos it's trying to drop from the case -- which proves the point. Even Viacom has no idea what is and is not infringing, despite having three years to figure it out. Yet it thinks that the law should require a third party to know immediately?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    maroon78 (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 4:21am

    moron in a hurry test

    Viacom gives new meaning to the moron in a hurry test

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    Viacom!? D:

    These are also the same people that bought out Neopets and kinda ruined some unique things about it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Nathan, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 5:20am

    187 people at Viacom are definitely not getting their holiday bonus this year

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    TechSlice, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 5:42am

    It's not that hard to work out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:01am

    Re:

    "It's not that hard to work out."

    So Viacom's just really, really slow and stupid then?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, is that what he meant? I thought he was saying that It's not that hard to work out that Viacom's just really, really slow and stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:09am

    Re: moron in a hurry test

    I enjoy this comment immensely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:09am

    i know lets do a test. take 63,000 m&ms touch 100 of them. mix them all together and tell me which ones are the 100 you touched. sony has no more luck at it then you would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe he was just making an off topic remark that we could all stand to get to the gym more often?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Entertainment Industry, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 6:50am

    Which Video Clips Actually Infringed On YouTube

    THEY ALL DO!!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    Fail analogy is fail.

    M&M's have no identifying markers. Copyright's entire POINT is identifying markers.

    However, you did manage to adequately express the point of the article for us, even with a rather miserably bad analogy (which I think was trying to argue for Viacom, not against them). If I can't figure out which videos I own, how the hell do I have any right to expect someone else to?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Joel (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 9:24am

    If my math...

    does not fail me it will take them a little bit more than a 1000 years to recognize that they are completely wrong.

    By the way I'm terrible at math so don't check it too much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re:

    actually, its not a failed analogy. change to decaf & relax a bit. a bit simplistic if anything... but not fail.

    if you think he was trying to support viacom in his analogy (or sony as he stated) then i think maybe you need to think about it a bit harder.

    next time you claim fail on someone elses post, try to not push the exact same idea using completely different words. its kind of in bad taste.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Christopher Weigel (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Aside from the number, what parallels here do you see?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re:

    "If I can't figure out which videos I own, how the hell do I have any right to expect someone else to? entire POINT is identifying markers."

    You Fail miserably! This is about the videos not having identifying marks. Its about Viacoms employees uploading some of these videos with corporate authorization. Then coming back later and saying "they shouldnt be there and its google - youtubes fault they should have know which are infringing". How does google - youTube determine which videos were uploaded legitamately?



    About the m&m's "fail" again after he touches them they do have identifying marks, they are called finger prints.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2010 @ 10:53am

    Re: Which Video Clips Actually Infringed On YouTube

    These kids today, they're watching with the YouTube videos of their friends and such, why, back in my day, kids were forced to watch just three channels and the commercials!

    These kids today have no respect for the legacy industries of the last century. It's not fair! We're going to sue someone!

    The world changed and we can't and that's not fair!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Nick Burns (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 11:28am

    I'd like to take the job as the 3rd party reviewer. Since I won't know what is/isn't a violation, I'll call Viacom whenever a new video is uploaded (about 1 million per day) and ask them to verify it.
    I'll charge $500 per video review/call. I'm sure I can make some good cash before they give up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This