Viacom Vs. You

[Bluejayfan94]

If this was already posted, please lock. If not, here we go.

 

GJbCWJNQUYI

 

 

 

Viacom will go through our personal stuff, and if they find we watched a coprighted video, they will take action... AGAINST US???

 

 

 

This video says the rest.

[Abyssalwhip]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=749117&p=5895437&hilit=viacom#p5895437

[RichieMcD]

Pure and utter [cabbage]. The legal fees would amounts to hundreds millions most likely if they took action against any person which watched a copyrighted video and very few judges would take this case seriously considering it's against a person who doesn't even know the material is copyrighted. They will win any case against youtube most likely but not against the average youtube user.

[aquariusman]

Actually, I have a feeling they will only go after people who upload many copyrighted videos, AKA the big ducks. Watching a video, how have I broken a law? I watched a copyrighted video, I didn't distribute it, I didn't claim it as my own, I didn't use it for commercial purposes, I didn't do anything but watch and enjoy it. If they went against the people who actually uploaded the videos, nothing would be wrong. They did something that is clearly illegal by distsibuting copyrighted material. It's like someone buying a pirated movie. The person who sold the movie can be charged, I think the person who bought it can be charged, if they knew it was pirated. Anyone else who watched the movie with the buyer cannot be, even if they knew it was pirated, because they didn't support pirating movies. In Youtube's case, there is no buyer, just supplier and viewer. Go ahead, look through my viewing history. If you can find that I uploaded copyrighted videos, then you have the wrong person, I have not uploaded any videos of any kind. If you find that I watched copyrighted videos, so what? It's not like I sent out links or distributed the videos.

 

 

 

Like this video said, I don't know what is behind a link until I open it.

 

 

 

This post was based on my own logic, and the video in the OP, not knowledge of copyright laws.

[bloodyhatchetbear]

This video does not fall under "Random YouTube Videos" because it has material for discussion.

 

 

 

Honestly, Viacom needs to back off. Although I don't watch many networks that they run, I will no longer be using their services of any kind.

 

 

 

Have fun losing customers, stupid slimeballs.

[Abyssalwhip]

This video does not fall under "Random YouTube Videos" because it has material for discussion.

 

 

 

Honestly, Viacom needs to back off. Although I don't watch many networks that they run, I will no longer be using their services of any kind.

 

 

 

Have fun losing customers, stupid slimeballs.

 

If that was directed to me, that's not what I linked it to.

[bloodyhatchetbear]

This video does not fall under "Random YouTube Videos" because it has material for discussion.

 

 

 

Honestly, Viacom needs to back off. Although I don't watch many networks that they run, I will no longer be using their services of any kind.

 

 

 

Have fun losing customers, stupid slimeballs.

 

If that was directed to me, that's not what I linked it to.

 

 

 

It was directed at anyone who would in future link to it. Was giving fair warning.

 

 

 

BTW as we speak, I'm uploading a video response. I felt like ranting for a bit on it, besides on this thread. I just needed this video so I could do the response... My browser decided to crash on me, so I couldn't save it as a favorite.

[Bluejayfan94]

This video does not fall under "Random YouTube Videos" because it has material for discussion.

 

 

 

Honestly, Viacom needs to back off. Although I don't watch many networks that they run, I will no longer be using their services of any kind.

 

 

 

Have fun losing customers, stupid slimeballs.

 

If that was directed to me, that's not what I linked it to.

 

 

 

It was directed at anyone who would in future link to it. Was giving fair warning.

 

 

 

BTW as we speak, I'm uploading a video response. I felt like ranting for a bit on it, besides on this thread. I just needed this video so I could do the response... My browser decided to crash on me, so I couldn't save it as a favorite.

 

 

 

My Browser always crashes when I am trying to do something important, though I only do something important like once in a blue moon.

[cheese666me]

lol, i wanna see them trying to sue hundreds of millions of youtube users all over the world. its absolutely ridicolous, it'll take them at least 3 centuries to sue everyone that has watched a copyrighted video, and as kranked said, very few or no judges will ever take something like this seriously.

[bloodyhatchetbear]

cheese, they can try. But, they will never succeed! -insert evil laughter here-

 

 

 

Anywho, yeah I posted said video response. Unfortunately, I can't post it here because of foul language.

 

 

 

Also, there's an online petitiony thingy attached to that video's Description. Just thought I oughtta point that out.

[Furah]

Petition if you do not approve of the judges decision I would reccommend you sign this petition (even non-Youtube users can)

 

 

 

EDIT:what is with the link being broken? :o

[Bluejayfan94]

.com/privacy9/petition.html]Petition if you do not approve of the judges decision I would reccommend you sign this petition (even non-Youtube users can)

 

 

 

Yup, I did. # 1665

[Kiriyama]

Hell, if I've watched any copyrighted stuff on Youtube, then I say bring it on.

 

 

 

Really, are they going to track me down and sue me? Seems like too much bother. This'll just be a scare tactic.

[Orpheus]

Hell, if I've watched any copyrighted stuff on Youtube, then I say bring it on.

 

 

 

Really, are they going to track me down and sue me? Seems like too much bother. This'll just be a scare tactic.

 

 

 

If anything, they won't have the manpower to sue millions of youtube users. And I doubt they will waste time sueing someone in SCOTLAND. They'll probably go after anyone in the U.S., but if they branch out, they'll fail horribly.

[Kiriyama]

They'll fail horribly if they even just sue inside the U.S.

 

 

 

Theres got to be a huge amount of users there, the manpower to track them all down will be massive. Even in the states alone, theres probably around 1 million users.

 

 

 

Time, money and effort to track them down and sue wouldn't be worth it. They'd lose more than they gain, and theres the chance of losing some (if not all) cases.

[DaN]

lol, i wanna see them trying to sue hundreds of millions of youtube users all over the world. its absolutely ridicolous,

 

 

 

They can easily do that it's just a case of sending a letter requesting several thousand dollars and proceeding with the case againsed anyone who doesn't settle out of court.

 

 

 

It's common practice (RIAA anyone).

 

 

 

 

 

We really need to turn on YouTube here they are the one's who gave out information to begin with, Im not in the United States so I won't have a problem with this but there are still allot of people who face possible financial ruin over this, the video is incorrect people who "just watch" will still be fair game for these lawsuits.

[Nenga]

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I am understanding this all right but according to that it means it justifies this under the law. To some degree i'm sure this works, if not dont blame me, i'm half asleep right now.

[limpbizkit]

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I am understanding this all right but according to that it means it justifies this under the law. To some degree i'm sure this works, if not dont blame me, i'm half asleep right now.

 

 

 

 

 

Point is they cant do anything. They'll probably sell our info as well which will mean more problems for them.

 

The person who should get attacked is the up loader no body else.

[InkofDeath]

Don't even know why that Judge even signed the darn piece of paper. :wall:

[Kiriyama]

Either 1 of 2 options.

 

 

 

1. He's a moron.

 

 

 

Or

 

 

 

2. Bribes.

[scootlaboot]

Viacom is just full of [cabbage]. Lets see them try to come into a rednecks home hehehe :twisted: . Most epic fail ever.

[ForsakenMage]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7506948.stm

 

 

 

The new ruling means that Google will still have to hand over the data logs but in an "anonymized form", meaning YouTube can swap user logins and IP addresses with other random signifiers.

 

 

 

:) Viewers win. Uploaders of copyrighted material on the other hand... :|

[Jaziek]

the annoying this is, that viacom dont give a [cabbage] about 90 odd percent of the copyrighted content on there, on their stuff. They can act like this is part of the war on piracy all they want, but on a scale of 1 to hollow this lie is right up there with carboard tubes and bird's bones.

[adam_ross0]

Viacom is just another company trying to milk the entertainment industry for every penny they can. What a better way to do this than to file lawsuits on Youtube/Google? :roll: :wall:

[DaN]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7506948.stm

 

 

 

The new ruling means that Google will still have to hand over the data logs but in an "anonymized form", meaning YouTube can swap user logins and IP addresses with other random signifiers.

 

 

 

:) Viewers win. Uploaders of copyrighted material on the other hand... :|

 

 

 

I doubt much will happen to those of us who do upload. A log file is hardly considered "Proof" and most knowledgable people will fight and win, but unfortunatly allot of guilty people will simply confess and try to settle out of fear of losing the court case.