4 ms·
I wonder... If there were really "countless internal YouTube communications" endorsing infringement, wouldn't this case be over already? As in Summary Judgement
by conover 17y ago
I wonder... If there were really "countless internal YouTube communications" endorsing infringement, wouldn't this case be over already? As in Summary Judgement over? Doesn't the very fact that this case is still being litigated indicate the hyperbole of this press release? I don't understand why Viacom is saying anything at all. Maybe they are trying to reassure their investors. In any event, I doubt we'll ever know what is really being uncovered in discovery.
- slackerIII 17y agoArs Technica has a few: "Chen twice wrote that 80 percent of user traffic depended on pirated videos. He opposed removing infringing videos on the ground that 'if you remove the potential copyright infringements... site traffic and virality will drop to maybe 20 percent of what it is.' Karim proposed they 'just remove the obviously copyright infringing stuff.' But Chen again insisted that even if they removed only such obviously infringing clips, site traffic would drop at least 80 percent. ('if [we] remove all that content[,] we go from 100,000 views a day down to about 20,000 views or maybe even lower')." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/smoking-guns-dark-secrets-spilled-in-youtube-viacom-filings.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/smoking-guns...
- wdewind 17y agoI mean this is in 2003 though. 100,000 page views a day is practically nothing. If he said that in 2006+ it would've been a bit different.