Quote :

"What I do know is that Google is operating under the laws set before them and there have been recent legal precidents supporting their position."

Well, then let's look at the law as it's written. The DMCA safe harbor provision says that, in order to be exempt from liability:

Quote :

"(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;"

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html)

OK. So we've established that Google selects out for pornography.

Can you please explain to me how it is that they meet (2) when it explicitly says they must deal with content "without selection of the material?" The only possible counter-argument I can see is that their pornography filter is part of the "automatic technical process" for storing content. And boy, I'd love to see them testify in court that they have a perfect, accurate pornography filter than can detect man-on-cheese-wheel action every time without human intervention.

And am I the only one who notices that when I go to their front page, they have a Featured section that is chosen by "Youtube editors?" Is that an automatic technical process that fits the above stipulation? How about the Youtube blog with its "Staff Pick of the Week?"

Can you honestly say that Youtube meets this stipulation in any way whatsoever?

All that notwithstanding -- if the Youtube staff are indeed reviewing their own site's content, then logic tells everyone with any common sense that they're turning a blind eye to copyrighted works!

Quote :

" Do you honestly propose that if a company or person cannot garauntee ABSOLUTE control over the lawful use of their products, they should be liable or any misdeeds done by the users of said product?"

I believe that if a company KNOWS that their users are doing misdeeds and breaking the law, then they have a moral obligation to find and stop them.

Don't pull this "gun manufacturers don't kill people" shit on me. It's totally self-serving and sophistic.

If a gun manufacturer sells someone a gun and KNOWS a priori that he's going to kill someone with it, then goddamn it, OF COURSE he has an obligation to do something! It's called gross negligence if he doesn't! Most people would go to prison for that!

And you're telling ME I live in a pseudo-world? Wake up!

Quote :

"Whoa, they are putting television on the internet and making it searchable."

Do your fucking homework. It's broadcast-quality over P2P. I don't see much broadcast-quality TV on the net -- certainly not on your beloved Youtube.

3/16/2007 1:35:45 AM

3/16/2007 1:38:02 AM

Google doesn't select out anything. Their users do. Users flag video as inappropriate, NOT GOOGLE.

They meet (2) because the transmission, routing, and storage is done automatically, without intervention by google during those processes.

Quote :

"I believe that if a company KNOWS that their users are doing misdeeds and breaking the law, then they have a moral obligation to find and stop them. Don't pull this "gun manufacturers don't kill people" shit on me. It's totally self-serving and sophistic. If a gun manufacturer sells someone a gun and KNOWS a priori that he's going to kill someone with it, then goddamn it, OF COURSE he has an obligation to do something! It's called gross negligence if he doesn't! Most people would go to prison for that! And you're telling ME I live in a pseudo-world? Wake up! "

Google doesn't KNOW a priori when a user signs up that they are going to commit any illegal act. The only time they know this is AFTER a user commits the act.

Apparently you do, when you can't read and comprehend the law you are trying to base your arguments on.

Quote :

"Do your fucking homework. It's broadcast-quality over P2P. I don't see much broadcast-quality TV on the net -- certainly not on your beloved Youtube."

Broadcast quality is available on NBC.com and ABC.com with all of their content. That's half of the big networks. CBS has "broadcast quality" video if you are defining it against standard Joost resolution and bitrate.

The video quality of youtube videos is HIGHLY dependent on the source, original upload format, and encoding settings. The advantage joost has is quality control. Their video looks better because they only have professionals creating it on professional equipment.

Go check out the hundreds of beta users and their blogs about joost. the overwhelming trend is that image quality isn't consistent, and is generally on par with other streaming services.

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 2:27 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2007 2:25:56 AM

Quote :

"And am I the only one who notices that when I go to their front page, they have a Featured section that is chosen by "Youtube editors?" Is that an automatic technical process that fits the above stipulation? How about the Youtube blog with its "Staff Pick of the Week?""

Youtube editors are not explicitly Google employees, they are site users.

Their picks come from browsing the site and finding videos worth featuring to the greater youtube audience, that might have otherwise fallen between the cracks.

No, finding content is not an automated technical process. A USER (not the service provider), searches for, finds, and selects a piece for transmission. The staff picks are a bit of a grey area, since one could argue they are acting in an official capacity for the service provider, but it should be pretty obvious that isnt the case.

3/16/2007 2:34:31 AM

Quote :

"Google doesn't select out anything. Their users do. Users flag video as inappropriate, NOT GOOGLE."

Funny, that's not what their Terms of Use says:

Quote :

"YouTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion."

Moving along...

As to whether it's automatic, I don't know that it's verified from the source -- Google being secretive as they are. But it's become a widely accepted truth. NBC and Viacom both seem to believe that they filter pornography, and -- ulterior motives aside -- both companies have spent considerable time under NDA with Google.

Besides, it's just kind of obvious. If you were Google, would you let the kiddie porn slip out to the masses? Seriously?

Quote :

"keep in mind, by the provision they only have to meet one of these parts"

No, they have to meet any that apply. That's an inclusive "or," for you Comp Sci nerds out there.

And I'd have to say, honestly, that the "editor selection" falls pretty squarely into the category of "routing."

Quote :

"The video quality of youtube videos is HIGHLY dependent on the source, original upload format, and encoding settings. The advantage joost has is quality control. Their video looks better because they only have professionals creating it on professional equipment."

So what you're saying is that Joost IS different from Youtube, SOPCast, etc etc?

The point of Joost is to push the boundaries. Clearly they cannot bend the rules of the space/time continuum and make bandwidth immediately zero-cost and infinite. But they are creating a service that drives the need for more bandwidth with legal content and, frankly, a pretty killer idea for a UI.

3/16/2007 3:20:31 AM

Quote :

" Youtube editors are not explicitly Google employees, they are site users."

Do you know that for a fact? Like, swear on your mother's grave? I know some of the editors are users. But take this entry in the staff blog from March 5th:

Quote :

"I'll be working as YouTube's News & Politics Editor and couldn't have arrived at a better time – we just launched "You Choose 08", a central hub of channels created by Presidential candidates for 2008. Check out behind-the-scenes footage from the campaigns, and make your own response videos to what these Presidential hopefuls are saying… This is your chance to interact directly with the candidates and tell them exactly what you think."

This guy works for YouTube and his title is "News & Politics Editor." Do you know for a fact that he doesn't contribute to the front page features? Hm?

3/16/2007 3:27:16 AM

Quote :

" Google doesn't KNOW a priori when a user signs up that they are going to commit any illegal act. The only time they know this is AFTER a user commits the act."

Of course they do. Don't be stupid. Joe Schmoe signs up and uploads a video called "American Idol Season 6, Episode 10." Ummmm ... DUH? Like they can't catch that in the act, before it happens?

If you're a gun salesperson and a guy walks into the store and says "I'd like to buy a gun. I need something that can pierce human flesh, especially a woman's" ...

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 3:33 AM. Reason : foo]

3/16/2007 3:32:44 AM

there are some really stupid people in this thread

3/16/2007 8:13:13 AM

call 'em out

3/16/2007 9:16:40 AM

Quote :

"Of course they do. Don't be stupid. Joe Schmoe signs up and uploads a video called "American Idol Season 6, Episode 10." Ummmm ... DUH? Like they can't catch that in the act, before it happens? If you're a gun salesperson and a guy walks into the store and says "I'd like to buy a gun. I need something that can pierce human flesh, especially a woman's" ..."

such infallible logic.....

to begin with isn't "in the act" while it happens not before it happens?

the rest of the 'argument' is fucking stupid.

Smoker4 apparently doesn't understand the concept of 'explicit' either

3/16/2007 9:39:54 AM

Quote :

"Funny, that's not what their Terms of Use says:"

You do realize there's a very big difference in reserving the right to do something and exercising that right, correct?

Quote :

"This guy works for YouTube and his title is "News & Politics Editor." Do you know for a fact that he doesn't contribute to the front page features? Hm?"

I fail to see what you're trying to prove. Noen said that YouTube editors are not explicitly Google employees and that they were site users. Being a Google employee and a YouTube user are not mutually exclusive positions. Nor did he say anywhere that YouTube Editors were explicitly not Google employees. There's a huge difference in the ordering of the words.

I fail to understand whether you're actually trying to prove a point or just trying to nitpick and find arguments that allow you to further rail against Google for the egregious crime you seem to think they're committing.

Also, I'm pretty certain I've seen pornography on YouTube before

3/16/2007 9:51:19 AM

Some timely commentary by Mr. Cuban

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/03/16/a-quick-note-on-dmca-safe-harbors-youtube-and-viacom/

Wonder how Neon will pick this one apart?

3/16/2007 10:05:42 AM

If you want to nitpick the terms as Cuban is doing then youtube falls under the term ISP as it provides an internet service

The actual wording says "service provider"

"§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief".........

I agree with some of Cubans blog posts but he is just being rediculous in this case. He says if they meant for it to apply to websites they would of explicitly called it a website. They don't explicitly call it anything other than "a service provider" IN ORDER to include all types of situations under this law.

Quote :

"transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider,"

The "providing connections for" applys directly to hosting services or websites. That is all youtube is, a free hosting service with a very very user friendly setup.

Cuban is way off on this.

3/16/2007 10:58:37 AM

First off, thank you Arab, plaisted and Stein for helping me out here.

Quote :

"Wonder how Neon will pick this one apart?"

I don't agree with his assessment of omission versus intent. When this was written, there was no concept of the sharing services we have today, no concept of web communities, user driven content, etc.

There was AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and usenet. The first three acted as both the service and content providers, and they got blanket exemption through this clause because they acted in both capacities. Usenet on the other hand was rife with illegal content. And yet, usenet providers are exempt, because they are providing a service to the users, and acting as a blind storage and transmission point.

This argument is nothing new, nothing revolutionary. Usenet has more illegal content in a day added to it than youtube has had in its entire existence. And yet, they operate completely legally under the DMCA, and you haven't seen Mark Cuban saying anything about them. Youtube ADDS an application on top of the service. It doesn't take away the fact that they are acting as the service provider for the transmission, routing and storage of the content.

This is a publicity stunt and a media hype campaign, not a legal battle.

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2007 2:53:04 PM

I don't know, is Usenet a publicly traded company with a "don't be evil" mantra?

3/16/2007 4:40:09 PM

What the fuck does it matter if a company is publicly traded or not?
What the fuck does it matter if a company has a specific mantra or not?

Usenet has extremely large amounts of perfectly legitimate material. It also has a seedier side. I haven't seen anyone claim google evil for their Google groups, which is a web based usenet service that has been in existance for years now. I haven't seen anyone claim Mozilla to be evil because they have a newsreader in Thunderbird.

Google isn't doing evil. Google is allowing users the FREEDOM to create and share content without inherenet restriction. USERS are abusing that freedom and should be held accountable for it.

Implementing any kind of catch-all, supervised system would inherently tread on dangerous freedom of expression and fair use rights. How can any automated system weed out for derivative works or satire? Both of which are allowed under the current laws. The system we have works and its there for a reason

3/16/2007 5:19:31 PM

Quote :

"Google isn't doing evil. Google is allowing users the FREEDOM to create and share content without inherenet restriction. USERS are abusing that freedom and should be held accountable for it."

Every time you say this, you conveniently leave out the part where google is profiting from this, or positioning itself to profit from it somehow.

3/16/2007 5:33:34 PM

Quote :

"What the fuck does it matter if a company is publicly traded or not? What the fuck does it matter if a company has a specific mantra or not?"

+1

Quote :

"I don't know, is Usenet a publicly traded company with a "don't be evil" mantra?"

You're either incredibly fucking naive or VERY sheltered.

3/16/2007 7:18:49 PM

Quote :

"Every time you say this, you conveniently leave out the part where google is profiting from this, or positioning itself to profit from it somehow."

And my response is, that's an unintended side-effect, not an intentional revenue stream. Why would anyone spend a billion dollars on a company for a short-term, limited, and high resource cost revenue stream?

You have no proof of this, other than you and Smoker4's completely retarded haterade against Google, apparently because you are holed up in Mark Cubans ass. You are basing your arguments on something that you can't prove, there's no direct evidence for, and there are a TON of financial and ethical reasons against.

So until you can show me some leaked Google memo, or some study showing correlations, or some shred of evidence not coming from some marketing hype machine, quit with this stupidness.

3/16/2007 11:23:44 PM

Quote :

"And my response is, that's an unintended side-effect, not an intentional revenue stream."

Wait...you said all publicly traded companies are going to do what is in their shareholders best interests, which just doesn't make sense with the statement you just made.

I think what you meant to say was

"Google is of course going to hide under the DMCA umbrella such that they can make their shareholders more money"

Dude, it's fine if you drink the kool aid. We can't all drink it. Someone has to be left behind to report about it.

3/16/2007 11:50:06 PM

Google isn't making money because they have copyrighted works on YouTube. They're making money because YouTube members are causing traffic to any YouTube page.

To say that they're making money using someone else's copyright is a gross misunderstanding of what it is that Google is actually making money on and for. If they are accepting specific money for specific content, it certainly isn't specific content that they don't have legal clearance to use.

Also, while you can argue that a publicly traded company is out solely to make money, you have to remember that this same publicly traded company is going to do whatever necessary to avoid a billion dollar lawsuit, since that sure as hell isn't in the best interests of its shareholders.

You seem pretty hung up on this "Do No Evil" thing, despite the fact that the "evil" YouTube is highly relative, I can obviously understand your disdain for the plant they're building.

3/17/2007 12:25:05 AM

Quote :

"Wait...you said all publicly traded companies are going to do what is in their shareholders best interests, which just doesn't make sense with the statement you just made. I think what you meant to say was "Google is of course going to hide under the DMCA umbrella such that they can make their shareholders more money" Dude, it's fine if you drink the kool aid. We can't all drink it. Someone has to be left behind to report about it."

Absolutely. And it's in their shareholders best interests to keep out of major court litigation. They aren't hiding anything. The law is there, they are following the law. They aren't doing anything illegal. A very small segment of their user base is.

Like I said, it's fine if you just dont like Google for whatever reason you choose. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, however misinformed or ignorant it may be.

[Edited on March 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : ']

3/17/2007 12:48:06 AM

So why set aside such an astronomically high number for lawsuit defense? Five hundred million?!! Even the most litigious Rambus hasn't spent that much on attorney fees over the years, and they are much worse offenders than Google will ever be.

3/17/2007 9:24:07 AM

Better safe that sorry? Honestly, that's just a dumb question. It seems as though you're trying to imply that because they have so much money squirreled away for defense, that they're obviously doing something illegal to warrant it. Really though, it'd be more like a 500 million dollar insurance policy.

Also, I fail to understand why it is you're shocked they'd have such a large amount of money set aside for legal defense when they're already being sued for twice that much, any other past and upcoming lawsuits. I'd sure as hell stash away 500 million and use every dime of it to defend me from having to pay one billion if it came to that.

[Edited on March 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2007 10:54:51 AM

Quote :

" You do realize there's a very big difference in reserving the right to do something and exercising that right, correct?"

Per the DMCA, they can't reserve the right to proactively remove "offensive content." It's like admitting up front that they want the Safe Harbor rules to apply to them only when they're convenient. Being a service provider per the DMCA means swearing to never discriminate based on content. The law is very, very explicit about this.

So at the very least, they gave Uncle Sam the finger by putting that clause in their Terms of Use.

Now, as to whether they actually clean up Youtube -- OK, in the academic, theoretical planet that some of you live on, Google/Youtube paid their lawyers to write a contract that merely "reserves the right" to pre-emptively remove pornography. The lack of pornography on the site is due to Google's willingness to send the man-on-cheesewheel action to the viewers (many of whom are under 18) first for a vote on its offensiveness. And there is a cabal of offensive-content police willing to help aggressively scrub the site for Youtube.

Personally, where I live -- here in the real world -- "implausible deniability" isn't exactly the strongest argument.

Quote :

" I fail to understand whether you're actually trying to prove a point or just trying to nitpick and find arguments that allow you to further rail against Google for the egregious crime you seem to think they're committing."

Well, your failings aren't my fault, are they? I was talking about the law.

The law says that the service providers cannot select content. Really, it does. Read it:

Quote :

"(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider"

See that part in boldface? That means "if you do any selection of material, then you lose your service provider status and are liable for copyright infringement on your site."

And my argument was: well, the Youtube editors select content.

Now -- if NONE of the Youtube editors is an employee, then fine. The "service provider" (Youtube) is not selecting anything. But if EVEN ONE is, then Google/Youtube will fail to meet that criteria and they will lose their protected status under the law.

I'm not nitpicking. The law is very strict. This is the central issue.

Now -- I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on the DMCA -- but it seems to me that this is entirely fair. Obviously, nobody should be given carte blanche to ignore copyright infringement unless the very nature of their business requires that of them. Like, for example -- they run a service that is indeed a "platform" for content sharing, like P2P.

Youtube is in the no-man's-land of wanting a service that is simultaneously "clean" -- of pornography, with great content featured up front -- while trying to adhere to the Safe Harbor provisions.

Even if you are right and all of Youtube's legalese is just theroetical "reservation of rights," or the Staff and Editor picks are done by trained monkeys on a space shuttle -- if a Viacom lawyer finds even ONE INSTANCE of Google/Youtube meddling in the site's content, their Safe Harbor status is at risk.

The Safe Harbor provision was a gift from Congress, but it most certainly isn't free.

Quote :

"They don't explicitly call it anything other than "a service provider" IN ORDER to include all types of situations under this law."

Well, says you. I'd put my money on the fact that Mark Cuban has an actual attorney whom he pays a lot of money to help him research the law. Since he's, you know, a billionaire who owns several content distribution services (including a theatre chain) and can do that sort of thing.

But, since we're on TWW and like to discount everyone's opinion but our own:

I interpret the Safe Harbor provision as like -- if you're the phone company, you shouldn't be liable for people talking about terrorism on your wires. All you do is provide the connection from point A to point B over your network. If you start listening to everyone's conversations, then you are liable for it -- because you are privy to what's going on.

An argument can be made either way whether a web site is "just" a service or some other entity. Personally I think that most web sites -- Youtube included -- fall more under the banner of "content provider" than "service provider." More than providing the underlying connections, Youtube aggregates and links the content into a single experience that is, well, Youtube.

The site lives and dies by its ability to have compelling user-generated content. If all they became was a conduit for sharing video, would the company be worth however-many billions? Then it would just be a glorified ISP. The day Youtube stops having the "my face every day for three years" (or, arguably, "The Daily Show") videos, it stops being worthwhile. And then the site owners will have to step in an do something to provoke new compelling content -- lest they become "just" a conduit for uploading videos.

I think the underlying business model should play a role in what constitutes a "service provider." Of course, that is not in the DMCA so it's entirely a gray area. It is relevant to some of the other copyright law involved (like the "inducement" aspect of Grokster), but Cuban is smart to keep the discussion closer to the DMCA.

3/17/2007 12:16:35 PM

Quote :

"to begin with isn't "in the act" while it happens not before it happens? the rest of the 'argument' is fucking stupid."

Oh, go to Hell. If "the act" is physically accepting the copyrighted video onto your server, then that kind of upload could be stopped beforehand with a few REST queries to the server.

3/17/2007 12:35:21 PM

Quote :

"So until you can show me some leaked Google memo, or some study showing correlations, or some shred of evidence not coming from some marketing hype machine, quit with this stupidness."

Of all the statements you've made on this thread, this is by far the dumbest. Easily. And considering that you've made some pretty dumb statements, that's a high bar.

The lawsuit hasn't begun yet. The parties involved have powers of discovery and subpoena that us mere mortals don't have. Even if I produced the best Ars Technica report on Youtube ever produced, it would pale in comparison to the evidence presented at trial.

You have just taken the low road of pretending that your shit doesn't stink and that you know everything.

3/17/2007 12:44:36 PM

Quote :

"It seems as though you're trying to imply that because they have so much money squirreled away for defense, that they're obviously doing something illegal to warrant it. Really though, it'd be more like a 500 million dollar insurance policy."

I'm not implying that they are doing something illegal. I'm implying that they are doing things on shaky legal ground...and have a "don't be evil" mantra.

If Google had an ironclad scheme to prevent copywritten content from traversing the world via their sites, why would they need such a large safety net set aside for legal battles?

3/17/2007 1:00:29 PM

I had a nice long reply typed out and my $#()* internet dropped.

^Lawsuits are ALL about who has the biggest coffers. I have a $150 million liability policy on a company with two damn employees. It's not about defending yourself from legitimate wrong-doing, it's about defending yourself from dipshits like Viacom who sue JUST to make some money or get some recognition.

Smoker:

You need to learn how to read, starting with the DMCA:

Quote :

""(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider""

See how that changes things entirely? This can be interpreted either way.

But luckily for Google, it doesnt need to be. You see, the ENTIRE service doesn't have to operate this way, only the infringing material in question has to meet all of these requirements to be exempt.

Being that Google employees ONLY remove content when it comes via user request, and unless a Google employee editor features some infringing content, there is no basis there.

Quote :

"Obviously, nobody should be given carte blanche to ignore copyright infringement unless the very nature of their business requires that of them. Like, for example -- they run a service that is indeed a "platform" for content sharing, like P2P. Personally I think that most web sites -- Youtube included -- fall more under the banner of "content provider" than "service provider." More than providing the underlying connections, Youtube aggregates and links the content into a single experience that is, well, Youtube. "

They are a platform, as I already owned you in proving. The only semantic difference between google and P2P is the end-user presentation. GOOGLE DOES NOT PROVIDE CONTENT. You say it yourself, that the content is user-generated, and you EVEN DESCRIBED THEIR SERVICE.

Jesus man are you daft?

And go crawl up Mark Cuban's butt, he has made many hilariously stupid comments over the years. I'm not taking anything he says concerning LAW seriously, even moreso when it's posted as an opinion piece on his web blog.

Quote :

"The day Youtube stops having the "my face every day for three years" (or, arguably, "The Daily Show") videos, it stops being worthwhile. And then the site owners will have to step in an do something to provoke new compelling content -- lest they become "just" a conduit for uploading videos. "

This is like saying "the day people stop being creative". We've (humans) managed to keep ourselves amused with entertainment for several thousand years, I don't think this is going to be a problem for Google/Youtube anytime soon.

Quote :

"You have just taken the low road of pretending that your shit doesn't stink and that you know everything."

Thanks, I'll take the normal role of not hating on a company for ignorant and retarded reasoning.

3/17/2007 6:06:56 PM

Quote :

"there are some really stupid people in this thread"

agreed...not all, though

3/17/2007 8:42:32 PM

Quote :

"^Lawsuits are ALL about who has the biggest coffers. I have a $150 million liability policy on a company with two damn employees. It's not about defending yourself from legitimate wrong-doing, it's about defending yourself from dipshits like Viacom who sue JUST to make some money or get some recognition."

Do you think before you post? Or does it just flow out of the fingers, and since you are you, it must be correct and logical?

This statement you made, adds nothing. I specifically said what is the point of having a huge lawsuit fund if you don't think you are doing something that will get you sued? Do you understand that? Can you read that?

3/18/2007 11:45:13 AM

It's so that if you do get sued, for any number of reasons, you have the financial means to properly defend yourself.

Do you ask people with massive life insurance policies why they have so much money in them if they don't plan on dying soon? Do you ask people with huge homeowner's insurance policies why they have them if they don't plan on it burning down soon?

I mean, you can fault companies for a lot of things, but huge legal defense funds is a retarded one to bitch about, especially considering they're currently being sued for twice the amount of money they have squirreled away and going up against some of the largest corporations and conglomerates in the world.

[Edited on March 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2007 12:05:38 PM

^Thank you.

I mean, how hard is it to understand what I wrote? Liability insurance isn't to protect you from fucking up so much as it is to protect you from getting shit on.

State409c, I mean generally you are a pretty smart guy, but really, are you on medication right now or something? I just explained to you almost verbatim the explanation of liability insurance I've gotten from the two lawyers I've dealt with during incorporating the two businesses I'm involved in.

3/18/2007 12:58:22 PM

Quote :

"Do you ask people with massive life insurance policies why they have so much money in them if they don't plan on dying soon? Do you ask people with huge homeowner's insurance policies why they have them if they don't plan on it burning down soon?"

These aren't good analogues. For one thing, you are nearly talking binary here of either having money set aside or not.

On the life insurance one. No one plans on dying soon, but the unexpected could happen. Companies that aren't doing things on shaky legal ground or are caught in the patent hording game don't have huge reserves set aside for potential lawsuits. Sure, they might get sued for some strange reason, but barring an unfortunate accident, the lawsuit will probably be of the nature that it will get tossed early in the process.

On the home insurance policy point? That's pretty absurd, and borderline a strawman if we are talking in those terms. It just doesn't apply to what we are talking about.


The fact that someone sued them for double what they set aside, basically proves the point that they expected to get sued. Why would any company assume, basically know, that they will get sued for huge dollar figures at some point? How hard is that to understand? It's not so much a knock on Google per se, but it proves out a weakness in the DMCA that Google is fully aware of, but they'll do business just the same since the vaguery exists.

3/18/2007 1:52:38 PM

Quote :

"Companies that aren't doing things on shaky legal ground or are caught in the patent hording game don't have huge reserves set aside for potential lawsuits. Sure, they might get sued for some strange reason, but barring an unfortunate accident, the lawsuit will probably be of the nature that it will get tossed early in the process."

See the thing is, YES THEY DO. The MINIMUM liability I could get for my company (which BTW you HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE TO LEGALLY OPERATE), was $150 million. THE ABSOLUTE MINUMUM. That's for a company who doesn't even make a product yet.

You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about here.

Why dont you go ask your butt buddy Mark Cuban what kind of liability insurance he has, because I'll bet you it's well over $500 mill.

[Edited on March 18, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2007 2:14:04 PM

liability insurance != cash set aside to pay your lawyers you moron.

3/18/2007 2:51:55 PM

Quote :

"The fact that someone sued them for double what they set aside, basically proves the point that they expected to get sued. Why would any company assume, basically know, that they will get sued for huge dollar figures at some point? "

Because America is sue-happy and frivilous lawsuits have become common place?

3/18/2007 3:49:54 PM

Quote :

"liability insurance != cash set aside to pay your lawyers you moron."

That's exactly what it's for, to pay for your legal defense if you are ever sued. Moron.

3/18/2007 3:52:47 PM

Quote :

"Because America is sue-happy and frivilous lawsuits have become common place?"

WHY DID THEY SET ASIDE THEIR OWN MONEY TO FIGHT LAWSUITS?

WAS IT BECAUSE

NO ONE WOULD INSURE THEM?


ARE YOU TWO INCAPABLE OF MAKING THE CONNECTION HERE?

3/18/2007 4:49:22 PM

I love how we're making sane assumptions, you're making assinine ones, and we're somehow wrong.

You're hung up on the "They say 'do no evil', then did something I didn't like, so obviously no one likes them and they're the most evil corporation to ever exist" thing, Chancey.

3/18/2007 5:12:40 PM

Answer the question.

Why oh why would someone sue the "do no evil" company for 1 billion dollars? All those lawyers they [Viacom] pay good money for, the same guys that know a shit ton more about law than either of you two will ever hope to know, must have some good reasonings for a lawsuit.

Sure, they may not take it all the way through to trial and it may just be a bargaining ploy. Well, if that is the case, why does Google specifically set aside 500 million dollars if it thinks it will just settle anyway?

3/18/2007 7:25:26 PM

You answered your own question.

To answer your second question:

Quote :

"Well, if that is the case, why does Google specifically set aside 500 million dollars if it thinks it will just settle anyway?"

You do realize there are legal costs even if you do settle, right? Or is that too mindblowing for you to fathom like the rest of this?

3/18/2007 7:55:15 PM

Quote :

"You do realize there are legal costs even if you do settle, right? Or is that too mindblowing for you to fathom like the rest of this?"

That has nothing to do with 500 million dollars. Jesus. They have lawyers on retainer that will earn their money whether they get sued or not. The 500 million is for settelments, etc.

3/18/2007 10:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Make Way for Copyright Chaos http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/opinion/18lessig.htm March 18, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor By LAWRENCE LESSIG Berlin LAST week, Viacom asked a federal court to order the video-sharing service YouTube to pay it more than $1 billion in damages for some 150,000 videos that Viacom claims it owns and YouTube users have shared. “YouTube,” the complaint alleges, “has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale,” threatening not just Viacom, but “the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.” Yet as federal courts get started on this multiyear litigation about the legality of a business model, we should not forget one prominent actor in this drama largely responsible for the eagerness with which business disputes get thrown to the courts: the Supreme Court. For most of the history of copyright law, it was Congress that was at the center of copyright policy making. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision, the Constitution makes plain that “it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly,” or copyright. It has thus been “Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary.” The court explained that “sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials.” In the view of the court in Sony, if you don’t like how new technologies affect copyright, take your problem to Congress. The court reaffirmed this principle of deference in 2003, even when the question at stake was a constitutional challenge to Congress’s extension of copyright by 20 years. Challenges are evaluated “against the backdrop of Congress’s previous exercises of its authority under the Copyright Clause” of the Constitution, it wrote. Congress’s practice — not simply the Constitution’s text, or its original understanding — thus determined the Constitution’s meaning. These cases together signaled a very strong and sensible policy: The complex balance of interests within any copyright statute are best struck by Congress. But 20 months ago, the Supreme Court reversed this wise policy of deference. Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Grokster case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright — the wrong of providing technology that induces copyright infringement. It announced this new form of liability even though at precisely the same time Congress was holding hearings about whether to amend the Copyright Act to create the same liability. The Grokster case thus sent a clear message to lawyers everywhere: You get two bites at the copyright policy-making apple, one in Congress and one in the courts. But in Congress, you need hundreds of votes. In the courts, you need just five. Viacom has now accepted this invitation from the Supreme Court. The core of its case centers on the “safe harbor” provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision, a compromise among a wide range of interests, was intended to protect copyright owners while making it possible for Internet businesses to avoid crippling copyright liability. As applied to YouTube, the provision immunizes the company from liability for material posted by its users, so long as it takes steps to remove infringing material soon after it is notified by the copyright owner. The content industry was a big supporter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Viacom is apparently less of a supporter today. It complains that YouTube has not done enough “to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site.” Instead, the Viacom argument goes, YouTube has shifted the burden of monitoring that infringement onto the victim of that infringement — namely, Viacom. But it wasn’t YouTube that engineered this shift. It was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As the statute plainly states, a provider (like YouTube) need not monitor its service or affirmatively seek facts indicating infringing activity. That burden, instead, rests on the copyright owner. In exchange, the law gives the copyright owner the benefit of an expedited procedure to identify and remove infringing material from a Web site. The provision was thus a deal, created to balance conflicting interests in light of the technology of the time. Whether or not that balance made sense in 1998, Viacom believes it no longer makes sense today. Long ago, Justice Hugo Black argued that it was not up to the Supreme Court to keep the Constitution “in tune with the times.” And it is here that the cupidity of the court begins to matter. For by setting the precedent that the court is as entitled to keep the Copyright Act “in tune with the times” as Congress, it has created an incentive for companies like Viacom, no longer satisfied with a statute, to turn to the courts to get the law updated. Congress, of course, is perfectly capable of changing or removing the safe harbor provision to meet Viacom’s liking. But Viacom recognizes there’s no political support for the change it wants. It thus turns to a policy maker that doesn’t need political support — the Supreme Court. The conservatives on the Supreme Court have long warned about just this dynamic. And while I remain a skeptic about deferring to Congress on constitutional matters, this case is a powerful lesson about the costs of judicial policy making in an area as complex as copyright. The Internet will now face years of uncertainty before this fundamental question about the meaning of a decade-old legislative deal gets resolved. No doubt the justices are clever, maybe even more clever than Congress. But however clever, it’s hard to believe that their input is worth the millions in economic value that will be wasted long before they announce their decision. Lawrence Lessig, a professor of law at Stanford, is a fellow at the American Academy, Berlin."

decent op-ed piece - you guys probably read it on slashdot

[Edited on March 18, 2007 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2007 11:14:48 PM

Quote :

"Answer the question. Why oh why would someone sue the "do no evil" company for 1 billion dollars? All those lawyers they [Viacom] pay good money for, the same guys that know a shit ton more about law than either of you two will ever hope to know, must have some good reasonings for a lawsuit. Sure, they may not take it all the way through to trial and it may just be a bargaining ploy. Well, if that is the case, why does Google specifically set aside 500 million dollars if it thinks it will just settle anyway?"

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=021001XH62U9

Is your answer. Google officially denies the whole 500 million dollar defense fund. Where did it come from?

An ANONYMOUS BLOGGER, that Mark Cuban reposted from. HMM YEA THAT SOUNDS REALLY CREDIBLE TO ME.

3/18/2007 11:39:47 PM

Quote :

"You see, the ENTIRE service doesn't have to operate this way, only the infringing material in question has to meet all of these requirements to be exempt."

That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of the Safe Harbor is "see no evil." If you're examining content manually -- at any stage -- you cannot possibly remain ignorant of infringement, and you're therefore liable for it.

I mean, think about it -- the Terms of Use say that Youtube will pre-emptively remove any content at their discretion except for copyrighted material. So obviously they believe, as I do, that the Safe Harbor provisions apply to manual selection at any point in the service.

Quote :

"They are a platform, as I already owned you in proving."

Dude, you have issues. Do you get out of the house much?

Quote :

"The only semantic difference between google and P2P is the end-user presentation."

LOL! That's awesome. I should have this statement framed and put on my wall.

Quote :

"This is like saying "the day people stop being creative". We've (humans) managed to keep ourselves amused with entertainment for several thousand years, I don't think this is going to be a problem for Google/Youtube anytime soon."

Or it's like saying "there's this thing called the marketplace and people are always trying to compete in it." What a wonder, huh?

3/20/2007 3:19:43 AM

Quote :

" You have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about here."

And you do? You can't compare a hold-back agreement to standard liability insurance. That just makes no sense.

The hold-back is leveraged against the shareholders' equity in the sale. It's directly tied to the underlying value of the company on the market. Google's MBAs (who are, of course, dumber than all of us) figured out that the probability of a lawsuit was high, and therefore they took it out of the Youtube founders' asses. That's a lot of money they didn't see up front, and likely never will depending on how they negotiated.

The $500 million dollar number isn't unreasonable -- regardless of its source. At any rate, if it's even in the double-digit percentage points, that's a huge discount that Google has taken right out of the company's market value -- just for copyright infringement.

This is way, way more than a "shit happens" fund. Cash is king, and you don't just sit on it unless -- for example -- you know your service is a hotbed of piracy ...

3/20/2007 3:38:53 AM

Quote :

"That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of the Safe Harbor is "see no evil." If you're examining content manually -- at any stage -- you cannot possibly remain ignorant of infringement, and you're therefore liable for it. I mean, think about it -- the Terms of Use say that Youtube will pre-emptively remove any content at their discretion except for copyrighted material. So obviously they believe, as I do, that the Safe Harbor provisions apply to manual selection at any point in the service."

I guess the point of the Safe Harbor laws have to do with "see no evil." But only in the way that they protect the online service from liability if they haven't specifically chosen or screened (seen no evil) the infringing content (IE it was uploaded and posted using an automated process. If you honestly think that they examine all the content posted on the site manually I don't know if there is a point in talking anymore as that is just an absurd notion.

I have no insider knowledge and can only guess how their system works but I would say any screening of material right now only takes place after it has been flagged inappropriate by a percentage of users watching the content. This is because 1) They can't check every video 2) They can't check every video that a single user thinks is inappropriate.

This leads to copyrighted material staying online while porn and such being removed not at fault of YouTube/Google but at fault of the users. If some popular copyrighted TV show or movie gets posted online and 100,000 people view it, not many of those people are going to flag it because if you are viewing the movie online in the first place, you don't give a shit about copyright. The few people who do see that it is a copyrighted material and do care about it are such a minority that it would never reach a threshhold where YouTube would manually review the material to see if it should be removed. Porn on the other hand would have a much larger percent of people think it needs to be removed (I'd even flag it).

Anyway I'm not expert but thats just one logical explaination of how the system could work under the DMCA and we see the results currently on YouTube. On another notion you seem to be saying that YouTube isn't covered by the DMCA for some technicality and when someone disagrees you tell them they aren't an expert but that Viacom's lawyers are. I haven't read anywhere credible that YouTube isn't covered and isn't following the rules (sorry a lunatic billionares blog is no more credible than a lunatics blog) of the DMCA. All legal discussions I've read focus on if YouTube's business model is based primarilly on copyrighted material and Viacom can pressure the DMCA to be changed or force YouTube into a settlement/revenue sharing system. Therefore your really the only one who is disagreeing and thinking you know more than the experts.

Wow, long post. I should find a more exciting job.

edit: One more thing, I don't think Neon was saying that $500m price point was unrealistic. He was showing that there is no evidence that Google set aside ANY funds specifically for copyright settlements.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 8:47 AM. Reason : $texas]

3/20/2007 8:44:54 AM

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070319-infringing-videos-on-ifilm-could-cause-problems-for-viacom.html

3/20/2007 9:15:27 AM

>.<

3/20/2007 9:39:07 AM