I think I see it, o yes there it is, the middle of the end of web 2.0!

Down with user generated content!

I for one welcome our Viacom net killing overlords!

I thought YouTube had yet to actually turn a profit, let alone pay for the gajillions google spent acquiring it

Thunk, thunk, thunk. My heads beats wearily against the proverbial monitor.

No offence to the Reg and Out-Law, but the pointlessness of the whole argument depresses me.

Firstly, it’s Merikan v Merikan. We in Europe are legendary for having no say in what Merikans decide in copyright law. In fact, we have highly paid European Commissioners who constantly turn a blind eye to the blatant price disparity between here and Merika.

Secondly, it’s Judas v Judas. They’re both guilty of exploitation. The media groups are guilty of exploiting the “free” internet as much as the likes of Google are. Shove your so-called viral marketing up your arse Viacom. Take all *your* content off the internet if you’re so concerned. See whose sitting pretty then.

Thirdly, these arguments are so stratospheric as to be pointless. So what if Viacom or Google wins. It changes nothing for the likes of us. It’s not like you can go onto YouTube and download an entire movie. “Internet changing” things have already happened with the closure of Napster, DirectConnect and other P2P/distributed (illegal) content. We still have the web. People who insist on not paying still find a way. I’d argue technology has again been bent out of shape to protect an unhealthy oligopoly – but they do have a government that’s more than happy to bomb and assassinate at the drop of a hat to protect their interest so…who am I to argue?

Why don't they start taking people to court who have these clips recorded on VHS tape. It's a pity they also don't take into account who might have bought a DVD of theirs after finding a TV series or whatever on youtube that they wanted!

On a personal note I've not bought a CD since all the record companies got on their high horse about sharing music, I mean most people copied used to copy music tape-to-tape years ago.

And that's probably the reason shed loads of CD shops have had to close, lets hope the same happens to TV studios/DVD shops, people get miffed and the same happens to the like of ViaCom, next time I buy a DVD I'll certainly be checking if ViaCom's logo is on there or mentioned, if it is ... you'll be going back on the shelf!!

"So what if Viacom or Google wins. It changes nothing for the likes of us."

Oh? If Viacom wins, and YouTube and similar user-generated content aggregators (Did I really just say that?) disappear, it would be a disaster for my company. YouTube, for all its negatives, has been a massive positive for my business, which is self-funded and has little money for promotion. We do, however, have a really nifty product - which people on YouTube like to look at and make videos of.

A large part of our inquiries come via YouTube - even via odd channels. A large project for an even larger military contractor materialized because a manager's kid friend saw our stuff and told dad about it.

Granted, I might be an edge case, but I'm betting there are others like me out there. It doesn't seem like there's a compelling reason to quash all of that in order to prevent people from watching ten minute chunks of freely-broadcast television.

And as far as I can tell, YouTube does a pretty good job of removing content - just try finding any clips of recent F1 races. Formula One Management has been effectively squishing YouTube videos of F1 for at least a couple of years now, reducing F1's visibility to its prime demographic and preventing potentially irreparable benefit to the sport.

The problem with this case, and one reason I'm glad I won't be on that jury, is that both sides have valid arguments. I honestly don't know which way I would sway, based on the information currently available.

YouTube does take down videos, so it would appear that they do fulfill their obligations under the DMCA. Nothing that I know of obligates them to proactively monitor the content they host (though Congress may very well change that in the future), so that argument carries no legal weight (not that that really makes any difference).

On the other hand, YouTube seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to StreamCast Networks (makers of Grokster, Morpheus, and Kazaa), wherein Streamcast was found guilty by the US Supreme Court to have "induced" its users to infringe copyright. And let's face it, Google has shown all too well that it doesn't care about copyright infringement (for example, by scanning [and thus making a copy of] every book it can get its fingers on without the author's permission).

Both sides are nothing more than power- and money-hungry corporate behemoths willing to do anything to increase their power and money. In this case, it's the taxpayers and those who will be on the jury (for which you only get paid $50 per day after the third day [you get nothing for the first three days]) who will get screwed the most.

Redstone (Viacom) can't tell the difference between free advertising and his prize content being pirated for all to see. He overvalues his material too much, hence the huge claim against Google. He can't see that the reason why his material is valuable (people watch the shows) is actually the 'buzz' generated by things like clips on youTube.

Personally, I'd just boycott anything that comes out of that conglomerate and wait for the howls as their ad revenue plummets. We don't need them anything like as much as they need us.

its laughable that the execs never seem to get their head round fundamental truths of t'internet

video will always get viewed somewhere. if not googletube then somewhere else.

a 16 year old will always eventually defeat drm that has been developed by hundreds of coders for millions of $£

laws only function by the consent of the people. millions are d/l content, you'll never stop it. right or wrong is irrelevant.

"YouTube strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement..."

Yes, it has, because as soon as it starts exercising its own editorial control, it forfeits the protections it claims under the DMCA.

I've only very limited time for YouTube, but less for Big Media, so I hope Viacom gets royally boned.

If Viacom wins, I really don't see how that could kill this part of the net.

"User generated content" doesn't mean creativity and even less authority. If it was at least about some "User created content", that wouldn't be a problem because, as a creator, you decide or not to use Youtube.

One could argue that a service like Youtube fails in its essence to prevent infringements, because it's just about "generated content", not "created".

If user generated content doesn't mean creativity, then why does it still have copyright?

If it doesn't mean creativity why did (Viacom?) take someone's video, make derivative of it to use as its promotional material and then claim that the original work was a pirate of their (derived) promo material and the original creator should be done for stealing it?

One could argue that Youtube fails in that manner. You could also argue that Viacom have abused their copyrights and deserve (which is a legal option) to LOSE their copyrights.

You could argue that.

Would you agree it?