Maximum PC viacom RSS Feed

New Evidence Bad News for YouTube in Viacom Case

Bart Salisbury — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:00:54 -0500

It appears that Google/YouTube’s Sgt. Shultz defense in it’s $1 billion copyright infringement case with Viacom might not fly. Apparently YouTube did know something as newly disclosed YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube’s own managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site, and further did some of the uploading themselves. Oops!

Google’s key point of protection against Viacom’s action is the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) that it was unaware of the uploading or existence of copyrighted material on its site, and when notified of such expeditiously act to remove it. Viacom and others have long been suspicious of Google’s “I know nothing” defense, and with the disclosure of these emails appear vindicated.

The revelation hasn’t left YouTube completely defenseless. It appears that Viacom’s employees were partly responsible for uploading Viacom’s copyrighted content onto YouTube. YouTube argues that if Viacom is doing the uploading how is it possible for YouTube to distinguish which material is kosher, and which isn’t. Viacom counters with The Wizard of Oz defense: “never mind that man behind the curtain,” maintaining that doesn’t really matter. It’s appears only a matter of time before the Chewbacca defense is trotted out.

Image Credit: Viacom, YouTube

Judge Trashes Some Copyright Claims in YouTube Case

Pulkit Chandna — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:50:13 -0500

Youtube was probably as tailor-made for copyright woes as it was for success. Apart from a copyright infringement law suit filed by Viacom, it is also contesting the claims made by a group of copyright owners in a separate class action law suit.

It got something to cheer about on Tuesday when the court jettisoned a foreign copyright holder’s claims for punitive and statutory damages against it. The UK’s Football Association Premier League had its claims denied by the Judge because, under US copyright law, only copyrights registered in the country are eligible for statutory damage.

Image Credit: MoneyWise

Viacom Squabble Sees Time Warner Promoting Web TV

Paul Lilly — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:45:55 -0600

Watching Viacom and Time Warner go at each other is like watching a divorced couple trying to push each others' buttons. But instead of alimony or child support, Viacom wants Time Warner to cough up more cash for its 20 channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon, and Comedy Central. If Time Warner doesn't agree, Viacom could pull all of its channels, and to drive the point home, the media conglomerate has taken out full page ads in Times and other publications showing Dora the Explorer crying because children won't be able to watch her show. Well played.

But if you think that's hitting below belt, Time Warner plans to fire back with what amounts to a slap in the face.

"We will be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online," said Alexander Dudley, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable. "We'll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set."

Yes, this is the same Time Warner who has been testing out metered bandwidth in certain markets earlier in the year, and has been charging an overage fee for $1/GB in those test markets after a two month grace period. Now the cable company will be encouraging its subscribers to use more bandwidth by setting up HTPCs and logging into sites like Hulu.

At least, that's the plan for the time being. Something tells us we haven't heard the last of this dispute. But if Viacom and Time Warner do actually break up, just remember, it's not your fault.

Google and Viacom Reach Deal to Keep User Info Private

Chris Moody — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:52:52 -0500

It seems that either Viacom came to their senses about making Google turn over user data on YouTube, or they didn’t like the bad press that their suit was generating. They have reached a deal to protect the privacy YouTube watchers everywhere and will allow Google to anonymize YouTube user data.

Previously Viacom succeeded in getting Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to order Google to turn over as evidence a database what videos users watch, the users' computer addresses, and their usernames. Many groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the order "threatens to expose deeply private information" and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. Whether the Act, created when VCRs were high tech, could be applied to YouTube was debatable. Viacom and Google’s deal avoids the legal snarl all together.

If you are into deciphering legalese (and we can assume you are into self flagellation too) you can read the details here.

Google Asks Viacom to Respect User Privacy

Chris Moody — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:13:51 -0500

Following up from a previous post, Google is asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and let them to anonymize the logs before handling them over to Viacom under the court order. “We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Google said.

Efluxmedia.com says that Viacom had said in a New York Times interview, “The information that is produced by Google is going to be limited to outside advisors who can use it solely for the purpose of enforcing our rights against YouTube.”

So the data is going to go to third parties. Somehow, that doesn’t make me feel any better about user privacy. We can hope that there will be a legal challenge mounted in the next few days against releasing user data unfiltered to Viacom.

Ruling to Expose Your YouTube Viewing Habits

Chris Moody — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:08:06 -0500

Have you been uploading copyright protected content on YouTube? Have you even been looking at it? Viacom wants to know, and a Judge has ruled in the recent Viacom v. Google case that Google has to turn over “all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website”.

Kurt Opsahl with the Electronic Frontier Foundation disagrees with the courts ruling arguing that the court, “erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users”. The VPPA was passed in 1988 as a result of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history being published during his Supreme Court nomination.

I agree with Opsahl, someone’s YouTube history should be just as private as their video rental history. Privacy is harder and harder to maintain in a world where technology is outstripping existing laws, which often must be judged by people with little experience in technology. We certainly don’t need which version of Star Wars Kid we were watching to be available for anyone to look at, or for companies to go trolling for lawsuits in data. Where do you come down on the issue?

AtomFilms Relaunches as Atom.com, Focuses on Funny

Paul Lilly — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:33:22 -0500

Looks like Maximum PC isn't the only one sporting an overhauled site these days. AtomFilms, owned by MTV Networks (who in turn is owned by Viacom) , relaunches today as simply Atom.com. More than a name change, the redesigned site will focus exclusively on comedy because, well, the web apparently isn't funny enough already.

The new focus comes as part of collaboration with Comedy Central, who makes an immediate impact by commissioning four new original Web series, with more exclusive content to follow. To keep things from going stale, the relaunched site promises daily new releases to its existing library of 20,000 videos, which will range from animation to live-live action narrative, sketch comedies, and more.

Atom.com also invites user-submitted material, the best of which could end up featured in a weekly "Upload Showdown." Those who win will become "pro" content creators, giving them access to other Comedy Central resources, including possible revenue sharing deals and even a half-hour series to air on TV Monday nights at 2 a.m.

Image Credit: Waverly Films

Copyright Infringement Goes Meta

Erin Simon — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:32:13 -0500

Viacom just can't seem to get a handle on this pesky thing called copyright. Earlier this year, it sent a tidal wave of takedown notices to YouTube, catching more than a few non-infringing works in the splash zone. Now it's embroiled in a billion-dollar lawsuit against YouTube's owner Google. Its latest move: copy YouTube videos itself, then send DMCA takedown notices when the copyright owner of the copied material reposts it!

Christopher Knight, in his campaign to become a member of his local Board of Education, created a commercial and uploaded it to YouTube. In the Star Wars-themed ad, Knight wields a light sabre and vows to fight against “the tightening grip of unfunded mandates.” A VH1 show called Web Junk 2.0, in which talking heads crack jokes over funny internet memes, broadcast the video without asking Knight's permission. Unphased by the permission-less copying, Knight then uploaded the Web Junk 2.0 segment to YouTube so that he could play the video on his blog. Viacom, the owner of VH1, then sent a DMCA takedown notice and got the video pulled from YouTube. In effect, Viacom accused the copyright owner of infringing his own copyright by copying what they had already copied. Huh?

Making a copy of a copyrighted work does not give you a new copyright in the new work – the original owner retains the right to control the dissemination of the original, which includes the copy you made. However, fair use allows you to make copies of protected works in some circumstances, such as for commentary or criticism. If Viacom's use was fair, then it does have copyright to the Web Junk 2.0 segment, and Knight's YouTubing of it was an infringement. If not, Viacom's program is the infringement, and Viacom has no power to control Knight's use. Who's right here? Without seeing the video, it's hard to say. Viacom's commercial republication of the entirety of Knight's work weighs against fair use, but it was providing commentary and criticism, transforming the work. Either way the law lands on this one, one thing is clear: it's yet another PR misstep from a company who can't seem to put a foot right lately.