4 ms·

I am sure if youtube execs had emails showing that they were actively encouraging and participating in the posting of copyrighted material on the site they woul

by adrr 2y ago

I am sure if youtube execs had emails showing that they were actively encouraging and participating in the posting of copyrighted material on the site they would have been prosecuted as well. Thats the evidence against Kim Dotcom, emails.

sigmoid10 2y ago
Funny you should say that, because there are literally such emails all the way up to Google's C-suite. They leaked a few years ago when Viacom sued them for mass copyright infringement on Youtube. In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted? >Revealing e-mails and other internal communications unsealed Thursday as part of a $1 billion lawsuit brought by Viacom show that many top Googlers — all the way up to co-founder Sergey Brin — were concerned about YouTube’s copyright piracy problems and how they could reflect badly on Google’s ethics. >[...] >Google executives — who previously had referred to YouTube as a “rogue enabler of content theft” whose “business model is completely sustained by pirated content” — nevertheless agreed to pay $1.65 billion to buy YouTube in 2006. https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/18/google-executives-called-youtube-a-pirate-site-2/amp/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/18/google-executives-cal...
- mjhay 2y ago
  Thank goodness that Google execs are too high-profile to be prosecuted!
  - ffhhj 2y ago
    And that's why they'll keep feeding the surveillance machine.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted? I mean it's actually a pretty good argument. If Viacom can't figure out which of the videos it's own employees/contractors uploaded to YouTube how can Google be expected to police it? > [1] in some cases employees of the entertainment firms had uploaded their companies' content to YouTube voluntarily ... Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube" with Viacom's express authorization, "it was unreasonable to expect Google's employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission." --- Afaik, the big difference between Mega and YouTube was that YT would remove the video. Mega instead had a system where it de-dup'd files so when a file was uploaded say ~10 times, all of those links were stored as a single file. So Mega would remove the link when requested but the 9 other links would still let you download that file. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
  - sigmoid10 2y ago
    It's actually a hideous argument. You could make tons of money with any service platform by bypassing all copyright that way. The only interesting thing here is that Google - all the way up to Sergei Brin - knew they were in the wrong. They knew it was piracy and yet chose to roll with it, because money. And the emails prove it. If held to the same standard, they would have to face the same repercussions.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      > You could make tons of money with any service platform by bypassing all copyright that way. Only if copyright holders voluntarily upload their content in a complete crazy manor. Otherwise the argument doesn't work since uh the copyright holder can easily identify which uploads were infringing. > The only interesting thing here is that Google - all the way up to Sergei Brin - knew they were in the wrong. They knew it was piracy and yet chose to roll with it, because money. And the emails prove it. Lawsuit is public record, feel free to link to those emails. --- Also from reading the lawsuit, Google removed the content in question. To quote the case. > [1] This case concerns the alleged infringement of a closed universe of videos posted on YouTube at various times between 2005 and 2008. As this Court explained, “only the current clips-in-suit are at issue in this litigation.” SPA54. All those clips were removed from YouTube years ago. SPA45 n.7. Viacom originally claimed that hundreds of thousands of YouTube videos infringed its copyrights, but ultimately identified approximately 63,000 clips-in-suit. JAXIII:3135(¶¶6-7). It turned out, however, that Viacom’s own employees and agents had actually uploaded many of those clips. JAIX:2213-14(¶¶150-152); JAXIII:3135-36(¶¶8-11); JAXXII:5745-46(¶¶1.63); JAXXIII:5973-75. Even when it realized that fact (after years of litigation), Viacom and its lawyers still were unable to identify all the clips-in-suit that Viacom was responsible for posting. JAXXII:5717-20(¶127), 5544-46(¶11). Many clips-in-suit, moreover, are identical to or indistinguishable from promotional clips that Viacom now acknowledges uploading. The non-court filings are way more accusatory but should really stick the court filings for matters of fact. > [2] 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. > [2] Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself. [1]: pg 15 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4135344/143/viacom-international-inc-v-youtube-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4135344/143/viacom-inte... [2]: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/broadcast-yourself/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/broadcast-yourself/
- nova22033 2y ago
  In its filings in U.S. District Court in New York, YouTube said that Viacom, which owns Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central and other entertainment properties, secretly tried to use YouTube’s popularity to promote its content, posting “roughed up” videos to make them look stolen or leaked, and even sending employees to Kinko’s to upload clips that couldn’t be traced back to Viacom. Interesting...hadn't heard of this before
starspangled 2y ago
No it's not that, it's that if Google had not donated to the right politicians, or had enough lobbyists, they would have been prosecuted.

by adrr 2y ago

sigmoid10 2y ago

Funny you should say that, because there are literally such emails all the way up to Google's C-suite. They leaked a few years ago when Viacom sued them for mass copyright infringement on Youtube. In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted? >Revealing e-mails and other internal communications unsealed Thursday as part of a $1 billion lawsuit brought by Viacom show that many top Googlers — all the way up to co-founder Sergey Brin — were concerned about YouTube’s copyright piracy problems and how they could reflect badly on Google’s ethics. >[...] >Google executives — who previously had referred to YouTube as a “rogue enabler of content theft” whose “business model is completely sustained by pirated content” — nevertheless agreed to pay $1.65 billion to buy YouTube in 2006. https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/18/google-executives-called-youtube-a-pirate-site-2/amp/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/18/google-executives-cal...

mjhay 2y ago
Thank goodness that Google execs are too high-profile to be prosecuted!
- ffhhj 2y ago
  And that's why they'll keep feeding the surveillance machine.
lesuorac 2y ago
> In that case Google even tried to argue that it was ok because it's the content creator's and not the service's fault. When are they getting prosecuted? I mean it's actually a pretty good argument. If Viacom can't figure out which of the videos it's own employees/contractors uploaded to YouTube how can Google be expected to police it? > [1] in some cases employees of the entertainment firms had uploaded their companies' content to YouTube voluntarily ... Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube" with Viacom's express authorization, "it was unreasonable to expect Google's employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission." --- Afaik, the big difference between Mega and YouTube was that YT would remove the video. Mega instead had a system where it de-dup'd files so when a file was uploaded say ~10 times, all of those links were stored as a single file. So Mega would remove the link when requested but the 9 other links would still let you download that file. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  It's actually a hideous argument. You could make tons of money with any service platform by bypassing all copyright that way. The only interesting thing here is that Google - all the way up to Sergei Brin - knew they were in the wrong. They knew it was piracy and yet chose to roll with it, because money. And the emails prove it. If held to the same standard, they would have to face the same repercussions.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    > You could make tons of money with any service platform by bypassing all copyright that way. Only if copyright holders voluntarily upload their content in a complete crazy manor. Otherwise the argument doesn't work since uh the copyright holder can easily identify which uploads were infringing. > The only interesting thing here is that Google - all the way up to Sergei Brin - knew they were in the wrong. They knew it was piracy and yet chose to roll with it, because money. And the emails prove it. Lawsuit is public record, feel free to link to those emails. --- Also from reading the lawsuit, Google removed the content in question. To quote the case. > [1] This case concerns the alleged infringement of a closed universe of videos posted on YouTube at various times between 2005 and 2008. As this Court explained, “only the current clips-in-suit are at issue in this litigation.” SPA54. All those clips were removed from YouTube years ago. SPA45 n.7. Viacom originally claimed that hundreds of thousands of YouTube videos infringed its copyrights, but ultimately identified approximately 63,000 clips-in-suit. JAXIII:3135(¶¶6-7). It turned out, however, that Viacom’s own employees and agents had actually uploaded many of those clips. JAIX:2213-14(¶¶150-152); JAXIII:3135-36(¶¶8-11); JAXXII:5745-46(¶¶1.63); JAXXIII:5973-75. Even when it realized that fact (after years of litigation), Viacom and its lawyers still were unable to identify all the clips-in-suit that Viacom was responsible for posting. JAXXII:5717-20(¶127), 5544-46(¶11). Many clips-in-suit, moreover, are identical to or indistinguishable from promotional clips that Viacom now acknowledges uploading. The non-court filings are way more accusatory but should really stick the court filings for matters of fact. > [2] 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. > [2] Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself. [1]: pg 15 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4135344/143/viacom-international-inc-v-youtube-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4135344/143/viacom-inte... [2]: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/broadcast-yourself/ https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/broadcast-yourself/
nova22033 2y ago
In its filings in U.S. District Court in New York, YouTube said that Viacom, which owns Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central and other entertainment properties, secretly tried to use YouTube’s popularity to promote its content, posting “roughed up” videos to make them look stolen or leaked, and even sending employees to Kinko’s to upload clips that couldn’t be traced back to Viacom. Interesting...hadn't heard of this before

starspangled 2y ago

No it's not that, it's that if Google had not donated to the right politicians, or had enough lobbyists, they would have been prosecuted.