The judge in the Viacom versus YouTube/Google copyright case has ruled that YouTube/Google have to turn over our private user data of every video viewed on the site, since it launched in 2005 (New York Times article).
To me, this goes far beyond what would be reasonable for Viacom to ask for in relation to their copyright claims. It effects not just those users who posted infringing video clips, but all those who even watched non-infringing clips.
It's a complete violation of our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and part of the broader, continued attack on freedom and democracy in general.
Please consider signing our online petition to Judge Stanton asking him to reconsider this ruling (click here).
Showing posts with label Viacom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Viacom. Show all posts
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
My Exclusive Inteview with Stephen Colbert!
I got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to interview Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's "Colbert more... Report." He agreed to talk about Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, and how he really feels about people using his material in their videos. Copyright Bozos watch out!
NOTES TO VIACOM LAWYERS:
1) This is called "Parody." Only an idiot would think it's a real interview. Parody is a means of poking fun of what's in the news. It's also protected as free speech.
2) The raw material was not obtained illegally or recorded off the air. It was downloaded from the colbertnation.com web site. Why did Colbert put the clips there to be downloaded? To quote from the official Comedy Central web site, "Stephen has decided to put it all out there for you. And by "it," we mean footage of an interview with Stephen that you can edit any way you like." Well, this is the way I like!
NOTES TO VIACOM LAWYERS:
1) This is called "Parody." Only an idiot would think it's a real interview. Parody is a means of poking fun of what's in the news. It's also protected as free speech.
2) The raw material was not obtained illegally or recorded off the air. It was downloaded from the colbertnation.com web site. Why did Colbert put the clips there to be downloaded? To quote from the official Comedy Central web site, "Stephen has decided to put it all out there for you. And by "it," we mean footage of an interview with Stephen that you can edit any way you like." Well, this is the way I like!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
More on Viacom, Viral Video, and a word from the future
My posting the other day about the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube/Google was, of course, not the only comment in the blogging or vlogging world about this. You'd think it was the lawsuit of the century the way it's been talked about - and in some ways, that might not be too far off the mark.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which caused a bit of an uproar a few years ago when it passed, will be tested here, and the results could have far reaching effects well beyond the world of YouTube.
Are common carriers and service providers responsible for the acts of their users? The DMCA says no, but Viacom says that YouTube's business model is based on copyright violation, and therefor they have made themselves responsible. Viacom, of course, owns iFilm and other net properties that have the same attitude toward copyright as YouTube.
Beyond all this, which you can read on any blog, or hear in any vlog, I want to make one quick comment, with example, about the power of viral video. This is bigger than YouTube, and its because the content creators extend far beyond Viacom.
Whatever happens to YouTube, viral video will survive based on what we, the vlogging community, create -- not based on what we rip from our TV screens.
Among the thousands of blog posts about the lawsuit was this one from CrapHammer, 'Viacom causes quite a stir'. Within that posting, Sean embedded a video from YouTube on the subject. Here it is for you:
Recognize that fellow? Why, it's me of course. I discovered this by accident, there was no permission granted, and no permission required. In my YouTube preferences, I click the box to allow embedding. This is how viral video works.
So, while you're hearing all the shouting from each side of this Viacom versus YouTube debate, remember this: online video is not all about posting poorly encoded chopped up clips from South Park. Original content, shared among users, as a means of communications --- This is viral video.
To demonstrate my point further, here's a Viacom parable, courtesy of Dr. Metropolis:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which caused a bit of an uproar a few years ago when it passed, will be tested here, and the results could have far reaching effects well beyond the world of YouTube.
Are common carriers and service providers responsible for the acts of their users? The DMCA says no, but Viacom says that YouTube's business model is based on copyright violation, and therefor they have made themselves responsible. Viacom, of course, owns iFilm and other net properties that have the same attitude toward copyright as YouTube.
Beyond all this, which you can read on any blog, or hear in any vlog, I want to make one quick comment, with example, about the power of viral video. This is bigger than YouTube, and its because the content creators extend far beyond Viacom.
Whatever happens to YouTube, viral video will survive based on what we, the vlogging community, create -- not based on what we rip from our TV screens.
Among the thousands of blog posts about the lawsuit was this one from CrapHammer, 'Viacom causes quite a stir'. Within that posting, Sean embedded a video from YouTube on the subject. Here it is for you:
Recognize that fellow? Why, it's me of course. I discovered this by accident, there was no permission granted, and no permission required. In my YouTube preferences, I click the box to allow embedding. This is how viral video works.
So, while you're hearing all the shouting from each side of this Viacom versus YouTube debate, remember this: online video is not all about posting poorly encoded chopped up clips from South Park. Original content, shared among users, as a means of communications --- This is viral video.
To demonstrate my point further, here's a Viacom parable, courtesy of Dr. Metropolis:
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Dr. Evil sues the future!
Yes, at long last, the lawsuit you've been waiting for... Media giant Viacom (MTV, Comedy Central, Sponge Bob) sues Google/YouTube for One Billion Dollars!
So, what's going on here, besides the dinosaurs protecting their eggs?
1 - Many YouTube users upload copyrighted material that is owned by Viacom (and others).
2 - Many other YouTube users prefer to watch such clips on YouTube at their own leisure, rather than at the times dictated by TV and cable stations.
3 - YouTube uses "passive copyright enforcement," meaning that it is up to copyright owners to file complaints, rather than an active system of screening every upload for possible copyright violations.
4 - This happens on every video site, not just YouTube, but the other video sites have no assets of their own and are not owned by asset-rich Google.
5 - Viacom, being a dinosaur, is unable to adapt to the new media realities, and prefers to throw its massive weight around in a way designed to crush the new media.
6 - Viacom may make some headway in this battle, but ultimately it cannot win the larger fight for the future of how we choose to be entertained.
Bottom line: Viacom cannot un-invent broadband, file sharing, or the desire for creativity and freedom.
What can they do (if there weren't dinosaurs, that is)?
1 - Accept that the technology to capture and edit their content is not going to vanish just because they sued Google.
2 - Embrace the users using short clips (either unedited, or re-formatted into new derivative works) as their grassroots promotional team. Continue to request the removal of complete, unedited programs from YouTube where warranted.
3 - Negotiate in good faith with GooTube (and others) for a reasonable copyright and royalty solution for the future that recognizes that media creations cannot be controlled the way they have been in the past.
And, finally,
4 - Admit that they got the One Billion Dollars figure from Austin Powers and pay a royalty on it.
So, what's going on here, besides the dinosaurs protecting their eggs?
1 - Many YouTube users upload copyrighted material that is owned by Viacom (and others).
2 - Many other YouTube users prefer to watch such clips on YouTube at their own leisure, rather than at the times dictated by TV and cable stations.
3 - YouTube uses "passive copyright enforcement," meaning that it is up to copyright owners to file complaints, rather than an active system of screening every upload for possible copyright violations.
4 - This happens on every video site, not just YouTube, but the other video sites have no assets of their own and are not owned by asset-rich Google.
5 - Viacom, being a dinosaur, is unable to adapt to the new media realities, and prefers to throw its massive weight around in a way designed to crush the new media.
6 - Viacom may make some headway in this battle, but ultimately it cannot win the larger fight for the future of how we choose to be entertained.
Bottom line: Viacom cannot un-invent broadband, file sharing, or the desire for creativity and freedom.
What can they do (if there weren't dinosaurs, that is)?
1 - Accept that the technology to capture and edit their content is not going to vanish just because they sued Google.
2 - Embrace the users using short clips (either unedited, or re-formatted into new derivative works) as their grassroots promotional team. Continue to request the removal of complete, unedited programs from YouTube where warranted.
3 - Negotiate in good faith with GooTube (and others) for a reasonable copyright and royalty solution for the future that recognizes that media creations cannot be controlled the way they have been in the past.
And, finally,
4 - Admit that they got the One Billion Dollars figure from Austin Powers and pay a royalty on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
