3 ms·
Even if one hand is not aware of the other, what they did goes far beyond innocent and accidental uploading - it sounds like a pretty systemic policy: It hired
by brown9-2 17y ago
Even if one hand is not aware of the other, what they did goes far beyond innocent and accidental uploading - it sounds like a pretty systemic policy:
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
- Nwallins 17y agoAll of that can be explained by attempts at viral marketing. They don't want be 'outed' as the source, not to sabotage YouTube but because the viral kids won't promote BigCo. I don't know if this will be Viacom's position, but it's one that Google should be prepared for.
- brown9-2 17y agoIt wouldn't matter. Viacom is a single legal entity. It can't both willingly participate in an act and then sue someone for allowing the act to happen.
- mfr 17y agoIANAL, etc., but I believe you have it exactly right. The principle in question is the Clean Hands Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands). In short, an entity can not seek an equitable remedy if they themselves have acted in bad faith.