3

3/20/2007 10:02:47 AM

Has anyone ever heard of iFilm??!


[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:07 AM. Reason : [Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ^ Keep the bullshit out of Tech Talk please.]]

3/20/2007 10:06:40 AM

^ ahahaahaahah ok

3/20/2007 10:19:22 AM

I mean, you are the guy that doesn't know how a diode works, so why should I be surprised your contribution to this section is page numbers.

3/20/2007 10:36:40 AM

^^ yeah.
iFilm was YouTube before YouTube was ever invented. It was the main place I went to in college to find clips of movies. Of course, it was not "social" and relied on WMV, so that's why it never really took off.

3/20/2007 10:52:44 AM

^^ I don't even know what a diode is other than something with electronics let alone how it works

3/20/2007 11:12:02 AM

Presumably you aren't an EE giving a test question including a diode to an interviewee?

3/20/2007 11:14:44 AM

self pwnt, you got me. in my defense it was a simple copy/paste mistake gone overlooked.

^ btw that diagram wasn't the one i gave out. the one i gave out during the inverview was correct, albeit hand-drawn so I couldn't put it up on TWW

PS if you want to argue w/ me, do it in a PM, not in the thread

3/20/2007 11:15:59 AM

and back on topic... from the Ars article lost on the last page

http://tinyurl.com/yow5ec

Quote :

"Ars searched one Viacom property—iFilm, which was acquired by Viacom in 2005—and found several instances of infringing video hosted by iFilm—content for which Viacom does not own the copyright."

Quote :

"Does Viacom hold its own properties to the same standard? We contacted both Viacom corporate and iFilm to ask them if they took steps to proactively identify and remove infringing videos or if they relied on copyright holders to notify them of infringing content. Some time after publication, Viacom responded with the following statement: "Contributions to iFilm are all screened by iFilm employees prior to posting, to ensure that copyrighted, pornographic or other restricted content is not posted to the site." A search using the term "NBA Brawl," however, returns a number of clips of televised footage of both NBA and college football fights and it is not clear that Viacom owns the copyrights on those clips. In fact, it looks a lot like what one would find on YouTube."

i never used iFilm because it wasn't so popular but still hypocrisy is hypocrisy

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 11:25:52 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."

No they don't. They said content may be removed with notification to the user. It says NOTHING about pre-emptively doing ANYTHING, BECAUSE THEY DONT REMOVE CONTENT WITHOUT USER ACTION. I've said this a dozen fucking times now, and yet you still don't get it.

Quote :

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

I'm sitting in my office right now, thanks. And you have issues with admitting when you are dead fucking wrong.

Quote :

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

You should, it would be one more instance of you being wrong. If you would like me to show you, in the eyes of the law, why P2P and Youtube are exactly the damn same, except for the presentation, I'd be glad to. But then you will look even more ignorant, so you might want to hold off on that.

Quote :

"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?"

WRONG. You said as soon as the users stop being able to come up with novel content. That has nothing to do with the marketplace. The two are completely separate. the market changing does not effect people's creativity. They might MOVE to another site, but they won't stop creating new and interesting content.

Quote :

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

I can, because THERE IS NO HOLDBACK AGREEMENT. It's a fucking RUMOR, posted by Mark Cuban, without ANY evidence. And it was refuted by Google's CEO publicly.

Fucking retard. if you come back with "well just because they say there isn't one doesn't mean its not there", then you need to go hangout with the conspiracy theorists and get the fuck out of this thread.

Quote :

"Has anyone ever heard of iFilm??!"

Yep, been a member for years. They don't get the traffic youtube does, but they still get millions of impressions weekly. Hardly a drop in the bucket. Not to mention their content was much more organized and filtered than youtube the last i checked (no rambling video blogs or kids playing with their webcams). If iFilm has illegal material, it's a hell of a lot worse than on youtube, just by the basis of the site.

3/20/2007 11:32:44 AM

Quote :

"No matter where one's own opinions lie about the legality and morality of file-sharing, almost all observers agree that the RIAA's jihad against individual file-sharers has been nothing short of a public relations nightmare. Although Viacom has demonstrated that it is willing to go beyond saber-rattling and take on another huge company in court, it's very doubtful that it will have the stomach for a large-scale battle against its fans—even if it would provide lots of fodder for The Colbert Report."

this is so very true...do you think that in 10 years companies (RIAA, Viacom) will finally get with the new century and work with the new medium that is teh intarweb, rather than trying to fight something they will never be able to beat?

seriously, this whole Viacom/YouTube thing amuses me to no end

3/20/2007 12:34:33 PM

Quote :

"I can, because THERE IS NO HOLDBACK AGREEMENT. It's a fucking RUMOR, posted by Mark Cuban, without ANY evidence. And it was refuted by Google's CEO publicly. Fucking retard."

Yep. I am a fucking retard:

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. has set aside more than $200 million in its just-completed takeover of YouTube Inc. as a financial cushion to cover losses or possible legal bills for the frequent copyright violations on YouTube’s video-sharing site. Without elaborating in a late Monday statement, Google said it is withholding 12.5 percent of the stock owed to YouTube for one year “to secure certain indemnification obligations.” "

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15720731/

That's an AP wire article.

Quote :

"12.5% of the equity issued and issuable in the transaction will be subject to escrow for one year to secure certain indemnification obligations."

From Google's web site at http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/youtube.html.

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO — Google Inc. has set aside more than $200 million in its just-completed takeover of YouTube Inc. as a financial cushion to cover losses or possible legal bills for the frequent copyright violations on YouTube's video-sharing site."

From USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2006-11-15-google-youtube-cushion_x.htm

Look at all these MAJOR NEWS SOURCES spreading rumors about a holdback!

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : foo]

3/20/2007 2:52:30 PM

Quote :

"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."

Per the DMCA Safe Harbor, copyrighted material is taken down when the owner of the copyright issues a "takedown notice."

This is an important point -- one of Viacom's complaints in the suit is that Youtube explicitly makes it hard for them to automate the takedown notification process.

3/20/2007 3:01:49 PM

Quote :

"do you think that in 10 years companies (RIAA, Viacom) will finally get with the new century and work with the new medium that is teh intarweb, rather than trying to fight something they will never be able to beat?"

But Viacom isn't a bunch of luddites. They've inked a deal with Joost already.

Given that, the copyright violations on Youtube for their content are unfair precisely because they impede Viacom's legitimate move onto the internet, with an equally (if not more) hot startup.

3/20/2007 3:04:33 PM

Why should GOOGLE have to automate any takedown process? It's the burden of the copyright holder to enforce their copyright.

And there IS an easy, automated way for Viacom to do this. Login to the site, and flag the video. Done.

Instead they are still sending takedown notices, by mail, to google. Who's fault is that?

Quote :

"Look at all these MAJOR NEWS SOURCES spreading rumors about a holdback!"

Wow, happens to be 60% less than the numbers you and State409c have been raising cane about, specifically about the AMOUNT. Sounds like smart business to me, you acquire a new company and want to mitigate the amount of suits that could come at you because you just acquired a startup.

Quote :

"But Viacom isn't a bunch of luddites. They've inked a deal with Joost already. Given that, the copyright violations on Youtube for their content are unfair precisely because they impede Viacom's legitimate move onto the internet, with an equally (if not more) hot startup."

Viacom has already been on the internet for YEARS with iFilm, which, as just noted, has just as bad a problem with pirated material on it. This has NOTHING to do with impeding Viacom. This is a giant fucking PR hype engine.

3/20/2007 3:11:34 PM

^^^ I was just explaining why porn is removed quicker than copyrighted material. The users flag it quicker and more.

Your wording (and probably Viacoms) is very poor there. "is that Youtube explicitly makes it hard for them " is very different from "is that YouTube does not explicitly make it easy for them". I would agree with the second statement however the first one is misleading. YouTube complies with what the DMCA states and does not attempt to make it difficult.

I assume that the real goal of the lawsuit is to get the DMCA altered or get a judge to order YouTube to include some sort of process that allows copyright owners to quickly remove content from the site. The $1b is completely rediculous as YouTube is following the law to the letter. Viacom is just using the large lawsuit as a means to levy for change/reform of the law.

well thats my uninformed opinion atleast.

3/20/2007 3:20:10 PM

^ I agree and I don't think it's going to work.

3/20/2007 3:25:10 PM

interesting theory from a blogger - Google wanted to get sued

Quote :

"Maybe Google Wanted to be Sued: YouTube and Plan B http://www.michiknows.com/2007/03/14/maybe-google-wanted-to-be-sued-youtube-and-plan-b/ via reddit: http://reddit.com/info/1bo9g/comments No matter how you spun it, a lawsuit was waiting to pounce on YouTube. And when the lawsuit came, it would be from multi-billion dollar media conglomerates. Worst of all, people feared it will trigger a landslide of more lawsuits. And even still, Google bought YouTube. And now the billion dollar war has begun. And I wondered: Maybe Google actually wanted to be sued. Backroom Discussions First of all, in a perfect world, no, Google wouldn?t want this. And Google, hoping that the world is close enough to perfect, did buy YouTube. But somewhere during discussions, someone must have asked, ?How is this different from Morpheus and Kazaa? Won?t we be sued into oblivion?? The smart lawyers at Google probably mentioned something about the DMCA, but honestly, would you want to buy a company that would be hated, constantly, by the very people who own the content that keeps you afloat? Or better, how will such a site remain #1 if there is a unified effort by content owners to either displace or destroy you? Most of all, media companies, who have significant clout and money, wouldn?t let YouTube host their content for free without a fight. There was more to this purchase than meets the eye. No matter how you look at it, the purchase came with a lot of legal risk. I believe nobody at Google is surprised that Viacom is suing and wants $1 billion, A.K.A. most of the sum Google paid for YouTube. This is all part of the expected road map in owning YouTube. So plan A was to hope people would be nice and look the other way. That worked for a year so far, and Google hoped it would continue. Plan B was to get sued. This isn?t any ordinary ?get sued and win? plan. Waiting to get sued so you can win in court is a defensive move for most companies. But for Google, this is preemptive. This is about Google defending YouTube, instead of YouTube defending YouTube. Why Getting Sued is a Preemptive Strategy Let?s pretend that YouTube was not bought out because talks got delayed. Then realize that it would have probably been sued a lot sooner by a lot more people. Investors would flee and nobody would want the company now. If YouTube goes broke, that would have likely pushed Myspace Video to #1, giving Interactive Corp a huge edge since it happens to own Fox Entertainment. Myspace Video would become whatever was in the best interest of Big Media. Probably a DRM infested piece of crap that sued its users for uploading copyrighted material. On the other hand, if YouTube didn?t go broke and fought the lawsuits, imagine if they had lost. Myspace Video gets to keep whatever edge it has, but virtually every other video site on the Internet becomes illegal overnight. Thousands of user records and IP addresses would get subpoenaed, and video sharing dies in one fell swoop. Why Does Video Sharing Matter to Google? What?s the next big thing on the net? Video. Google cares what happens in video sharing because it wants a slice of the video ad market. It doesn?t want to just be in the market, it wants to own it like it owns text ads. But that?s not the whole answer. Google bought YouTube because it wanted to make sure of three things: 1. Google has first dibs for video ads on the biggest video site on the Internet 2. YouTube remains legal 3. Expand and protect current fair use related provisions involving copying intellectual property The first point is obvious, and the second point feeds into point #1. But the third point is the most important for Google. If YouTube were to lose a lawsuit for hosting intellectual property, it would severely weaken Google?s position in a variety of current and future endeavors. Any aspirations Google has of some day crawling and indexing video content (nope, they don?t have this technology yet) would now be in a legal limbo. It would also potentially re-introduce new arguments against their Google Image Search. And their book search program might suffer a similar fate once the YouTube precedent settles in. Google, being a company that spiders and indexes (stores) massive amounts of copyrighted information, would now be in serious legal jeopardy. YouTube is Google?s Future Thus, Google not only threw money at YouTube: it threw its lawyers at YouTube too. Google?s lawyers are some of the most well-versed copyright lawyers in the world since so many of their lawsuits deal with that issue. The goal here is simple. Google wants to own the #1 video sharing site (completely legal), own 100% of the ads on that site, and clarify many currently-ambiguous copyright issues in their favor. If all of that goes as planned, the $1.5 billion paid to YouTube was a small price to pay. But if they had never gotten involved, the potential losses were far greater than a billion or two. Since Google has a market capitalization of over $130 billion, even a dip of 1% means losses of over $1 billion. But if entire sections of their business model became legally uncertain, you can bet they?d lose a lot more than 1%, especially with their insanely high P/E ratio (the ratio between how much they make and what their stock is worth). By fighting a lawsuit, Google gets to prove the legitimacy of Internet video distribution - something that will probably never flourish under the ?old media? regime. Unfortunately for them, the DMCA protects site owners from liability of what its users do ? or at least that?s the general interpretation. Letting YouTube fight this battle alone with their own lawyers might have resulted in a very public and unnecessary loss that would have crippled Google?s video ambitions and possibly caused collateral damage to a bunch of related industries (especially search). This would have forced everybody to play by the conglomerates? rules, and taken anyway any guarantee of Google getting any cut of the video ad pie. Video sharing needs this clarification before it can move forward. And if Google legitimizes it, they will have the biggest video site on the web for their video ads to play. So let?s ask ourselves again: would Google pay $1.5 billion so it can fight the lawsuit on behalf of YouTube? Now that I think about it, it seems like a wise long term move."

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 7:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2007 7:48:49 PM

Quote :

"Why should GOOGLE have to automate any takedown process? It's the burden of the copyright holder to enforce their copyright."

Because it's what they should do? Oh wait, forgot -- we don't care about that anymore.

Even Google admits they haven't done enough in this area -- hence all the talk (but no action) about automated copyright filtering.

The DMCA doesn't put the burden on anyone; the effort is split between the copyright owner and the service provider. Right now Viacom has to search thousands of videos to find violations; Youtube, on the other hand, just has to respond to requests for specific problems.

Clearly there's an imbalance here. And that can certainly be construed as negligence.

Of course you don't care -- because, ultimately, you think Google shits gold.

Quote :

"Login to the site, and flag the video. Done."

Ridiculous. The DMCA requires copyright owners to send takedown notices. It's certainly the only way the content is guaranteed to be removed.

Quote :

" Wow, happens to be 60% less than the numbers you and State409c have been raising cane about, specifically about the AMOUNT. Sounds like smart business to me, you acquire a new company and want to mitigate the amount of suits that could come at you because you just acquired a startup."

Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse -- if it's such smart business to you, why were you screaming just a few posts ago that they didn't even enter into such an agreement? Maybe because you change your position every time it becomes inconvenient for you?

$200 million is a lot of fucking money for indemnification, considering that the company was only bringing in about $15 million in 2006. And no, its not the same as your little liability insurance plan. That's cold, hard cash they're just sitting on, waiting to have it sued out of them.

As to the actual number -- we've already established that no-one here is free to speculate on anything you can't drag up an article on in five minutes. All the facts in the world are truly beneath your fingertips. Personally I don't believe the $200 million is the end of the story.

Quote :

"I assume that the real goal of the lawsuit is to get the DMCA altered or get a judge to order YouTube to include some sort of process that allows copyright owners to quickly remove content from the site."

That's too much of a crap shoot. The Supreme Court isn't the DMV; it's not like "take a number, sit down and wait for your law to be changed."

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the main point of the lawsuit is to bring home a lot of cash. Google is currently sitting on over $11 billion of it.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 1:46 AM. Reason : foo]

3/21/2007 1:45:35 AM

I'm not sure what I enjoy more

Seeing Nein schooled

or realizing

he'll respond to the death to defend his internet superiority.

3/21/2007 7:51:31 AM

Funny how you disappear when you get clowned about the !!!$500 MILLION!!!

And then reappear when someone who you assume to be smarter than you continues posting.

It's just a funny coincidence, is all.

To be honest, the reposted entry by dFshadow and the idea that Google bought YouTube in order to fight YouTube's legal battles does make a decent amount of sense.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 7:57 AM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 7:56:49 AM

Quote :

"Funny how you disappear when you get clowned about the !!!$500 MILLION!!! And then reappear when someone who you assume to be smarter than you continues posting. It's just a funny coincidence, is all."

Clowned? Wow Stein, you're really reaching now considering the number stands at a not too paltry $200 million, and possibly more. I'd say neon got clowned a bit harder when he reduced his argument to "OH...WELL...THATS ONLY 60% OF THE VALUE YOU ORIGINALLY STATED, SO YOUR POINT ISN'T VALID"

Furthermore, Smoker was either already intimately familiar with this topic, or took the time to research it more in depth than I did. I guess that makes him smarter. I don't really care to put any effort into a Neon battle, because as has been pointed out, he'll shift stance as he pleases, and just generally behaves like a spoiled 8 year old that didn't get his way when he loses an argument.

THE MOTHERFUCKER TRIED TO TELL ME HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT I WAS UP TO IN REGARDS TO ONLINE POKER AND RUNNING A COLLUSION SIMULATION

AND STRETCHED THE ARGUMENT ACROSS 4 PAGES

BECAUSE HE JUST KNEW WHAT I WAS UP TO

3/21/2007 8:07:48 AM

While I agree the value of $200m/500m is a nonissue I do think there is a big difference between "to cover losses or possible legal bills" as the article states and 'to settle lawsuits' that was originally talked about. I don't even think YouTube is profitable right now and ANYONE would agree that YouTube is in a tricky position regarding copyright issues and the DMCA. That is why this money has been put away-> 1) To fund YouTube while it isn't profitable 2) To pay for a legal time to defend your company that you believe operates legally.

If the money was 'set aside to settle lawsuits' then you could say Google was in fact admitting that what they were doing was illegal and they obviously do not believe that (neither do I).

Another thing that people seem to be confused about are the licensing agreements YouTube has signed and are trying to sign. Most people seem to take this as something to the effect that these agreements are necessary because the current system is illegal. This once again is not the case (well I guess Viacom and a few people on here would disagree) and the current YouTube method is legal. What these licensing agreements are for is to allow YouTube to keep those clips online and not have to remove them. Some sort of profit sharing agreement based on add revenue or something. But once again these licensing agreements are not because YouTube NEEDS to have these to remain legal. YouTubes wants these to expand their content online to legally include copyrighted material and not just user generated material.

Quote :

"The DMCA doesn't put the burden on anyone; the effort is split between the copyright owner and the service provider. Right now Viacom has to search thousands of videos to find violations; Youtube, on the other hand, just has to respond to requests for specific problems. "

I don't know what to say other than, no that is not the case and you are wrong. The DMCA does put the burden on the copyright owner to notify the service provider. This has always been the case and it has always been difficult for copyright owners to locate violations. But once again as per the DMCA that burden is on the copyright owner to find the violation and notify the service provider. Thats clearly stated. You may disagree that this is fair (and I would agree with you, the system does make it difficult at times to protect copyrighted material and I'm not sure if that is the correct way to do things) but I don't see how you can argue that it isn't exactly what the law says and exactly what is happening in the YouTube/Viacom case.

Quote :

"That's too much of a crap shoot. The Supreme Court isn't the DMV; it's not like "take a number, sit down and wait for your law to be changed." If I had to take a guess, I'd say the main point of the lawsuit is to bring home a lot of cash. Google is currently sitting on over $11 billion of it. "

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree here. If you can find some links with knowledgable people stating they actually think Viacom has a chance to get a sum of cash anywhere near $1b let me know. And I'm not being sarcastic I'd like to see their explanation seeing as how I'm not an expert and there may be things I'm missing.

Viacom and several people posting in here think that the DMCA is not a fair way for things to be carried out. I'm pretty sure Viacom is using this lawsuit to bring that idea out and hope the supreme court/congress/whoever agrees and changes things.

3/21/2007 8:56:55 AM

Dude, your entire contribution to this thread has been "RAR I'M SO MAD ABOUT THIS DO NO EVIL THING" and "500 MILLION DoLLARS, THEY MUST BE UP TO NO GOOD"

The latter of which seems to be exactly what you accuse Noen of doing to you in some other thread.

I don't understand why it's so ludicrious that a company put away $200 million to cover possible legal issues that they may encounter due to buying a company that (previous to Google buying it) already had legal concerns.

Not to mention, if I'm understanding correctly, the 200 million dollars would be money that YouTube's creators would eventually get if YouTube didn't cause Google legal trouble. Presumably the point is so that Google can say "we're letting you manage this, but if you fuck up and get us sued, you're only screwing yourselves."

I fail to see what's wrong with that.

3/21/2007 9:14:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what I enjoy more Seeing Nein schooled or realizing he'll respond to the death to defend his internet superiority."

Wait, was that when you originally posted a blog by Mark Cuban, defending his word as bond up until the point you were shown his source was an anonymous internet blogger?

Or when you clowns tried to tell me Youtube wasn't a platform?

Or was it when you said the company mantra was "do no evil", instead of the actual "Don't be evil"?

Or maybe when you two tried for a page and a half to figure out what Youtube's own policy was about removing content, instead of just reading it?

Or possibly is was when you realized that Viacom owns iFilm, which has had it's own problems with copyright infringement LONG before youtube even existed?

I mean, just tell me when I started getting schooled here.


Now back to the discussion:

Quote :

"Because it's what they should do? Oh wait, forgot -- we don't care about that anymore. "

Um, did you MISS the part where I said:

"Login to the site, and flag the video. Done"

Quote :

"Ridiculous. The DMCA requires copyright owners to send takedown notices. It's certainly the only way the content is guaranteed to be removed."

By Youtube's own terms & conditions, it's guaranteed to be removed when flagged, if found to be inappropriate or illegal.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. They are providing a FAST and EASY system to remove offending content. While the DMCA may require a mailed takedown notice, if Viacom REALLY just wants their material removed, why wouldn't they go the fast, efficient route that is ALREADY IN PLACE?

Quote :

"I do think there is a big difference between "to cover losses or possible legal bills" as the article states and 'to settle lawsuits' that was originally talked about."

There's my response as well to the 200m dollar holdback. There's a big difference between covering your ass in a sue-happy company, and readying cash to keep people quiet.

Quote :

" I'd say neon got clowned a bit harder when he reduced his argument to "OH...WELL...THATS ONLY 60% OF THE VALUE YOU ORIGINALLY STATED, SO YOUR POINT ISN'T VALID" "

I didn't REDUCE my argument to anything. Your argument has been reduced to DO NO EVIL 500 MILLION.

Quote :

"just generally behaves like a spoiled 8 year old that didn't get his way when he loses an argument."

Because I haven't already come out and apologized for being wrong in THIS THREAD? Dude, really, if you are going to call me out for something, at least be current with it. I'm not correct all of the time, and I have no problem admitting when that happens. Just because you got trolled, like you are doing here now (and you mgiht want to read your quote here)

Quote :

"Furthermore, Smoker was either already intimately familiar with this topic, or took the time to research it more in depth than I did. I guess that makes him smarter. I don't really care to put any effort into a Neon battle"

You need to get the fuck out.

3/21/2007 9:28:25 AM

DMCA related article on /.


http://tinyurl.com/22cp6l

Quote :

"the NFL's only option in response to her counter-claim would be to force her to remove the clip via court proceedings. This obviously did not happen, and instead, the NFL chose to ignore her claims completely. After receiving her counter-notification claiming fair use, sending another takedown notice over the same content is considered a knowing misrepresentation that the clip is infringing, according to DMCA section 512(f)(1). Under the DMCA, the NFL would be liable for all legal fees incurred by the alleged infringer, along with damages. "

3/21/2007 10:18:46 AM

I could be wrong about everything in this thread, except this:

Quote :

"he'll respond to the death to defend his internet superiority."

Evidence

Quote :

" Wait, was that when you originally posted a blog by Mark Cuban, defending his word as bond up until the point you were shown his source was an anonymous internet blogger? Or when you clowns tried to tell me Youtube wasn't a platform? Or was it when you said the company mantra was "do no evil", instead of the actual "Don't be evil"? Or maybe when you two tried for a page and a half to figure out what Youtube's own policy was about removing content, instead of just reading it? Or possibly is was when you realized that Viacom owns iFilm, which has had it's own problems with copyright infringement LONG before youtube even existed? I mean, just tell me when I started getting schooled here. "

3/21/2007 10:28:01 AM

Quote :

"Um, did you MISS the part where I said: "Login to the site, and flag the video. Done""

The point he was making flew right over your head.

3/21/2007 10:47:42 AM

Dude, this is like the second thread in a row where you've tried to pass off either a blog post or comments on a blog post as absolute fact.

It kind of pisses away any credibility you might have built up at any point.

3/21/2007 11:08:02 AM

Quote :

"Dude, this is like the second thread in a row where you've tried to pass off either a blog post or comments on a blog post as absolute fact. It kind of pisses away any credibility you might have built up at any point."

3/21/2007 11:46:14 AM

Quote :

"Dude, this is like the second thread in a row where you've tried to pass off either a blog post or comments on a blog post as absolute fact"

Excuse me, what? Where is the other thread?

3/21/2007 11:52:03 AM

Quote :

"Excuse me, what? Where is the other thread?"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=455493&page=5

3/21/2007 12:23:14 PM

Please Stein, show me where in that other thread I am trying to pass a blog post off as a fact of any sort whatsoever?

And in regards to the 500 million of this thread, it was generally a simple mistake. That number flew all over the internet, and even the Great Neon was letting it ride until he decided to do some research to WIN this thread. Which, btw, is pretty funny because he first claimed this 500 mil, or any amount of money for that matter, didn't exist per what Google's CEO said, then it was later shown that at least something substantial indeed does.

3/21/2007 12:32:43 PM

you posted an article from October 2006, I posted the followup article in November 2006.

The article stating the 200 million (which is for a different purpose) came after that. Keep on backpedaling though.

Also, I wonder why Viacom isn't also suing Interactive Corp (Myspace) at the same time? They have the same methodology and problems that youtube does.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 12:42:52 PM

Quote :

"Look at the first comment to the article"

Quote :

"And one more for good measure"

You used them, for whatever reason, as proof that other people agreed with your assessment which, in your mind, proved that you must be right. You base your conclusions on shitty sources then go on and on about your dick, how people who disagree are on it, and it's really quite embarassing to have to read.

Then again, at least you aren't writing those novellas of idiocy anymore like when you were using TypeA, so at least you've made some progress.

3/21/2007 12:46:50 PM

^^ What? I really don't know what point you tried to make with any of that.

Quote :

"You used them, for whatever reason, as proof that other people agreed with your assessment which, in your mind, proved that you must be right. "

You're probably trolling me, but whatever. How about this Stein, since you are so strict on fact, and following some sort of debate rules in Tech Talk, find where I stated what El Doucho tried to assert that I claimed...I'll give you some help, this most certainly wasn't it:

Quote :

"I'm not claiming anything more than it is relevant to this discussion you cock rider."

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : a]

3/21/2007 12:47:17 PM

This thread should really be renamed to dear State409c, you can't win.

3/21/2007 12:48:50 PM

If I were only so as insignificant as El Nacho in Tech Talk, my life would be simpler.

3/21/2007 12:54:19 PM

Quote :

"I'm not claiming anything more than it is relevant to this discussion you cock rider."

Quote :

"You base your conclusions on shitty sources then go on and on about your dick, how people who disagree are on it, and it's really quite embarassing to have to read."

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 12:59:30 PM

Quote :

"^^ What? I really don't know what point you tried to make with any of that."

Let me spell it out for you:

You post a Mark Cuban blog, and ride his cock for a page and a half, claiming, and I quote here:

Quote :

"Nope, but Mark Cuban knows a helluva lot more than you and I about how to run a business, and he is more on my side than yours. He innovated the Dallas Mavericks. They weren't exactly the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, etc before he came to town. The bottom line is, he knows a helluva lot more than you or I. Some timely commentary by Mr. Cuban http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/03/16/a-quick-note-on-dmca-safe-harbors-youtube-and-viacom/"

Hmm, seems like you are trying to push his OPINION as a basis for argument here.

Then I posted the rebuttal to your stupid claims.

Then Smoker found a NEWER article to the rebuttal showing the REAL amount, and the REAL justification for the holdback, both of which are entirely different from Mr. Cuban's claims, and your argumentative basis.

Do I need to simplify this even more for you?

3/21/2007 1:02:31 PM

I didn't have a conclusion in that thread you stupid ass.

DO YOU GET THAT STEIN?

IS THIS THE RESPONSE YOU WANTED?

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT THIS WAY?

I PROVIDED THE DAMN LINK AS A POINT FOR DISCUSSION.

I POSTED WHAT BLOGGERS HAD SAID TO SHOW THAT NON PLATFORM SPECIFIC GAMES MIGHT HAVE AN EFFECT ON SALES OF THE PS3

MIGHT

FEEL FREE TO DEBATE THAT IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT

BUT IF YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO BE A TROLL BASTARD

THEN FUCK OFF

3/21/2007 1:05:32 PM

"What do you want to do when you grow up El Nachó?"

"I hope one day I can be significant on a website"

"Keep your eyes on the prize, and maybe one day you can achieve your dreams, kid"

*sigh*

If only...

3/21/2007 1:06:58 PM

Holy cow.

He made a post that didn't involve his dick.

WE MIGHT BE TURNING A CORNER HERE, FOLKS.

3/21/2007 1:08:26 PM

Quote :

"I PROVIDED THE DAMN LINK AS A POINT FOR DISCUSSION. I POSTED WHAT BLOGGERS HAD SAID TO SHOW THAT NON PLATFORM SPECIFIC GAMES MIGHT HAVE AN EFFECT ON SALES OF THE PS3"

^because bloggers establish credibility to an argument. Oh wait. Points for discussion generally have SOME merit, other than "hey we think alike"

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 1:13:50 PM

Maybe we can get some videobloggers in on this topic. They're pretty much the epitome of high quality information sources.

3/21/2007 1:16:02 PM

Quote :

"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."

Now isn't this a bit funny.

Who has more credibility, Mark Cuban, based on an anonymous inside source, got it correct that there were hold-back provisions, just not the dollar amount

OR

THE COMPANY THAT DENIES THE RUMOR WHICH DEFINITELY HAS A LOT OF TRUTH TEETH TO IT.

While having a "don't be evil" mantra.

Quote :

"Then Smoker found a NEWER article to the rebuttal showing the REAL amount, and the REAL justification for the holdback, both of which are entirely different from Mr. Cuban's claims, and your argumentative basis."

What?

Quote :

""What do you want to do when you grow up El Nachó?" "I hope one day I can be significant on a website" "Keep your eyes on the prize, and maybe one day you can achieve your dreams, kid" *sigh* If only..."

Whatever Sand Santa. Get your pathetic trolling out of here you no pussy getting fag.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : a]

3/21/2007 1:18:01 PM

Hi

WORDS WORDS WORDS

ANGRY WORDS INSULTS INSULTS

MORE WORDS WORDS WORDS

RANDOM PROOF

INSULT INSULT

Quote :

" QUOTE BOMB "

FLAWED ANALYSIS WORDS WORDS WORDS

WITTY FINAL CLOSING RETORT


The punchline is that I contributed as much to this conversation as anyone here.

3/21/2007 1:22:35 PM

Quote :

"Now isn't this a bit funny. Who has more credibility, Mark Cuban, based on an anonymous inside source, got it correct that there were hold-back provisions, just not the dollar amount OR THE COMPANY THAT DENIES THE RUMOR WHICH DEFINITELY HAS A LOT OF TRUTH TEETH TO IT. While having a "don't be evil" mantra. "

Yes, I give the CEO of Google more credibility than I give Mark Cuban or his anonymous blogger. Plain and simple.

He neither had correct the amount, or the reasons. Are you aware there are holdback provisions in damn near any buyout? It's not fucking rocket science to predict that.

You also may notice, it was GOOGLE who announced the actual provisions to the public, not some blogger, which just goes to STRENGTHEN Google's credibility.

I was just waiting for you to resort to the "OMG the corporate machine is all lies, it's a conpiracy, I only trusts the intarwebs, money=lies, lets all be socialists and march on the bell tower" to come out, as it's usually the last line of defense.

[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2007 1:29:26 PM

Quote :

"He neither had correct the amount, or the reasons."

HE DIDN'T HAVE THE REASONS CORRECT? WHAT DID HE HAVE WRONG? ARE THE HOLD BACKS NOT FOR LAWSUIT DEFENSE?

From Cubans anonymous source

Quote :

"t didn't take a team of Harvard trained investment bankers to come up > with the obvious solution and that is to set aside a portion of the > buyout offer to deal with copyright issues. It's not uncommon in > transactions to have holdbacks to deal with liabilities and Youtube > knew they had a big one. So the parties (including venture capital > firm Sequoia Capital) agreed to earmark a portion of the purchase > price to pay for settlements and/or hire attorneys to fight claims. > Nearly 500 million of the 1.65 billion purchase price is not being > disbursed to shareholders but instead held in escrow. "

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/10/30/some-intimate-details-on-the-google-youtube-deal/

From the mouth of the horse

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. has set aside more than $200 million in its just-completed takeover of YouTube Inc. as a financial cushion to cover losses or possible legal bills for the frequent copyright violations on YouTube’s video-sharing site. Without elaborating in a late Monday statement, Google said it is withholding 12.5 percent of the stock owed to YouTube for one year “to secure certain indemnification obligations.”"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15720731/

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL BULLSHIT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NEON?

3/21/2007 1:35:08 PM

He's just saying that isn't "to pay for settlements" like Cubans source said it possibly would be but for "cover losses or possible legal bills" like the press release.

Might seem like a minor issue but its actually a huge difference. I won't repost why just scroll up and read my previous post.

3/21/2007 1:48:23 PM