4 ms·

>It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. Did it occur to you why they did that? Perhaps to make them appear legit on a serv

>It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. Did it occur to you why they did that? Perhaps to make them appear legit on a service that was well known for piracy in the first place? The big difference here is that megaupload was not as popular as youtube among normies. So they didn't bother to leak there. Or maybe they did, and we just don't know yet. Dotcom could still come up with the same defense in the coming trials and it would be hilarious. Especially since there is research that show that piracy can boost media. So if Viacom didn't do it, someone else certainly did. The double standard is very real.

lesuorac 2y ago
> Did it occur to you why they did that? No need to for speculation. Viacom can explain their own behavior which they never do and just admit it happened and they also later informed YouTube about it the next day. > The double standard is very real. Maybe go read the lawsuits. Reading poorly summarized (or not even summarized) content of it is really not going to show the differences.
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  >No need to for speculation. No one is speculating here. Read the discussion again. The argument was literally "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" That is blatantly false. No need to sugarcoat this.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    If it's so blatantly false why can't you quote the emails? It's not like they're not publicly available in the lawsuits. You're conflating emails from Google Videos with YouTube ... Those are separate products and at one point even competitors. That would be like using emails sent amongst Trump staffers to prosecute Joe Biden for treason. Keep in mind, that quote is in relation to why Viacom "roughed up" their videos. Which you literally asked for speculation on in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 .

lesuorac 2y ago

> Did it occur to you why they did that? No need to for speculation. Viacom can explain their own behavior which they never do and just admit it happened and they also later informed YouTube about it the next day. > The double standard is very real. Maybe go read the lawsuits. Reading poorly summarized (or not even summarized) content of it is really not going to show the differences.

sigmoid10 2y ago
>No need to for speculation. No one is speculating here. Read the discussion again. The argument was literally "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" That is blatantly false. No need to sugarcoat this.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  If it's so blatantly false why can't you quote the emails? It's not like they're not publicly available in the lawsuits. You're conflating emails from Google Videos with YouTube ... Those are separate products and at one point even competitors. That would be like using emails sent amongst Trump staffers to prosecute Joe Biden for treason. Keep in mind, that quote is in relation to why Viacom "roughed up" their videos. Which you literally asked for speculation on in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41266386 .