Google Blogoscoped

Forum

More Google vs Viacom  (View post)

/pd [PersonRank 10]

Friday, March 30, 2007
13 years ago3,420 views

this has to read in conjuction with "PLAN B" :)-

blogoscoped.com/forum/89929.ht ...

Hashim [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

the Supreme Court made this clear in the Grokster case – if the service promotes the breaking of copyright, even with a wink and a nod, then they are liable.

On Google's side, I would like to know how they stay so diligent in removing porn, yet can't remove obvious copyright violations.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

> I would like to know how they stay so diligent in removing
> porn, yet can't remove obvious copyright violations.

Hashim, regarding that issue also have a look at this discussion... blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-0 ...

Stu [PersonRank 2]

13 years ago #

I either didn't read Viacom's op-ed, or don't remember it, but man, I find Google's really annoying.

It just reeks of arrogance that they shouldn't have to do anything at all just because Viacom supported the DMCA. Whatever the letter of the law is, Google's taking no moral responsibility that its service is a haven for content that it has no right serving up. "Ha ha! Look at silly Viacom, they can't even find all the illegal content, and they expect *us* to?" Um yeah, YOU'RE the f***ing search company, it's your job to be able to find stuff. It's pretty unreasonable to force Viacom to watch tens of thousands of videos to figure out which ones are violating their copyright.

Colin Colehour [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

One of the biggest problem with copyrights is finding the copyright owner. Google would have to have a huge database of copyrighted work for it to try and match new videos that were violating someones copyright. Its just not feasible at the moment.

Fritz Harasin [PersonRank 2]

13 years ago #

music, videos, it's always the same issue. If a person didn't produce something, but publishes it (napster, youtube), (s)he is responsible. If the producer (or whoever holds the rights) didn't want it published, (s)he has a right for compensation. If (s)he believes in the anarchic principles (or shall we say open source?) wants it published, (s)he can do it herself. Youtube is a platform for those people. The others who upload copyright protected stuff make a violation, not youtube (you cannot blame the builder of a street for the crime that was committed on it either). And viacom and others should sue users (google/youtube know who they are...).

On a related note, i always find it cycnic, that people fight against copyright (which is a worthwhile cause, and i am all for creative commons), then consider people (and they work, which they illigally share) as idols. These people prefer your money to your values, otherwise they could freely share their work on a cc licence.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!