Breaking News - Viacom sues Google, YouTube for $1 billion

You can kiss streaming video goodbye.

$1 Billion?

$1 Billion?????!!!!

The sad thing is that this lawsuit has validity. Clearly Google and YouTube have allowed people to post content that contains protected material.

I think Google and YouTube are going to be forced to shut down shop completely.

From a journalism standpoint you could argue that films (such as my own) contain content under the fair usage interpretation of the law. Since my film is not being sold or profited off of, they would be hard-pressed to make a case.

BUT - i doubt Google and YouTube can police and moderate all content in this way. The $1 Billion lawsuit is the FIRST SALVO in what could be an avalanche of lawsuits from every media company.

as usual - the public loses.

Typically this type of blog

Typically this type of blog entry would be rejected as it has nothing to do with 9/11, however in this case it is definitely important news for the community - in fact it could easily be argued that the inception of google video and youtube have been two of the largest tools for the 9/11 community and its growth in the last year+..

please keep in mind that we have plenty of space and bandwidth at 911podcasts.com, and that we are happy to take 9/11 videos on there as an alternative to these video streaming sites.

every silver lining

has a touch of grey... we never needed google and youtube to provide streaming video services for us--it's as easy for us to do as it is for them.

Plus, the problems with copyrighted material don't affect us because most of what we use falls under fair use. This sounds more like a battle of media titans over who gets to distribute crappy copyrighted content.

Once the lawsuit proceeds and copyrighted stuff can't be shown for free, our non copyrighted materials will just have that much less competition.

from the horse's mouth:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Well watch this great WTC7 film on Google Video by arie...

Whilst you can !!!

Link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739

As WTC7 videos go... it is the "dees bees" :-)

Best wishes and long live Google Video and Youtube !!!

PS... dz you can download the high quality AVI for 911podcasts... details in blog : http://www.911blogger.com/node/6799

is it fair use?

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; NON-PROFIT, EDUCATIONAL, CHECK!

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
A NEWS REPORT WITH SERIOUS FACTUAL ERRORS ON A TOPIC OF GLOBAL IMPORTANCE - CHECK!

3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
A SMALL PORTION OF THAT DAY'S COVERAGE - CHECK!

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
ADMITTEDLY POINTING OUT THIS BBC BLUNDER MAY AFFECT THE VALUE OF AND MARKET FOR BBC NEWS..

3 out of 4! The same proportion of dentists who recommend brushing after every meal! I think we win this case. NEXT??

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

the question is not 'fair use'

the question is whether YouTube and Google can and will spend the money to fight multiple $1 billion lawsuits to defend the usage of questionable material in thousands of individual videos.

they can't possibly. they lose by default. we lose by default.

why do WE lose when Google loses?

We will just host our own videos, and only use copyrighted material that falls under fair use.

The only people who will lose are Google shareholders and those who prefer not to pay for copyrighted infotainment garbage.

It's like if tomorrow someone took Wikipedia away, would we care? No! Becuase then we could make our own wikipedia that doesn't censor 9/11 Truth.

If you think fighting off a $1 biliion lawsuit is tough, try having to prosecute 10,000 volunteer video hosters who aren't violating any copyrights.

How do we lose?

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

well

Google and YouTUbe reach a much broader audience than 911Blogger does. no disrespect intended.

Google and YouTube reach an audience of millions and millions of people.

From what Ive heard, the

From what Ive heard, the lawsuit is an effort by viacom to force google/youtube to the negotiating table. And no way Google is going to get "shut down" in its entirety...if anything it will become what Napster became...a pay per use service.

I never meant to imply Google would shut down

but their video service might.

i just don't see how a business model could possibly track video content and create a royalty schedule that would satisfy the media giants.

but we shall see