Comments on: Veoh Wins Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Viacom-YouTube Next?

By: Google Infringes-copyrights

Google Infringes-copyrights — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:25:37 +0000

I’m sorry jinzu23,

But when you use other people’s content to make your editing, you are infringing copyrights, period. You have ZERO permission to use any content. Why don’t you just create your own, rather than use someone else’s to make your “art known” without permission. YouTube is not a platform (only The Internet is) and YouTube infringes copyrights by allowing you to upload the footage as an anonymous user multiplied by 50,000 anonymous users at the same time that do the same thing so YouTubve profits from it. ILLEGAL. Your “disclaiming” is garbage, self-admitting you broke the law. That’s not freedom, that’s 3rd world Zimbabwe. YouTube and Google are NOT protected by “safe harbor”, nor have they won this lawsuit. They were only deemed as protected by the safe harbor statute under the DMCA on the outright, and as expected the massive extreme copyright infringer known as Google comes out with a huge lie claiming the won the entire lawsuit. They have not won, only received a preliminary judgment deeming what the safe-harbor law is. It will be appealed. And if it has to go to The Supreme Court, I hope everyone who infringes copyrights for the free-bee quick-fix education system they are receiving cry hard. No more Santa Claus for the dirt watching everything for free without paying content owners. Pay for the content. YouTube will go down, in the end.

By: jinzu23

jinzu23 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:08:19 +0000

for the most case. i should say they need a new way of working with the copyright infringement. especially on youtube. when i make music videos to put up on youtube, i place a disclaimer on my page that i don't own the music, nor the scenes that i use. even more in the beginning of each video i show the artists who made the song, yet i still get hit for copyright infringement. if anything such things actually promote the music industries. with youtube more of "their" music is reaching the ears of the people. if its a popular video and many people are watching it, more then likely they'll look into the croup and buy an ablum if it really catches their interest. but the way it is, i doubt their going to go through with making a better infringement system that doesn't anger the people who are uploading things that give the claim to the rightful holders of the music they use and also are not making any profit off of the videos themselves. its nothing more then for entertainment and nothing else…so why the music industry paranoia? why should we have to get blocked, muted, and accounts deleted when we're not using it in a manner harmful to the companies in any way? majority of the bands that create the music don't care about people making things from them if their getting credit for it, its really just the industries that go the extra mile and beyond to take such measures of ruining everyone elses enjoyment. of course, youtube will never back the people that use its site, mainly for the reason that considering it all…people will still use youtube no matter what so i'm guessing they don't feel the need or worth to battle out a point of making an infringement system that isn't unfair to the people on the site.

By: abbynormal

abbynormal — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:51:00 +0000

well… i for one am glad to see this… and the fact that this will put your content in front of far more eyes than your so called distrbution networks that overcharge far more than they deliver… with the number of crap movies that come out anymore it is nice to be able to watch them online first and then go pick up the dvd if it is worty of such a thing… many are not… quality is the best thing to stop this… make good content and we will buy it… make crap like you have been doing and we will choose the disposable route… watch, delete and forget…. you have only yourselves to blame… same as the music industry…

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:27:24 +0000

I agree with G. This was a sloppy approach from a copyright holder. One thing though, Napster's "index comprised entirely of copyrighted material" – huh??? Feels like a scary lack of understanding among those handing down legal precedent…

By: G

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:10:07 +0000

Rafat – the only point the judement makes is telling copyright holders to present facts and not show up in court with nothing but a four letters sketched on a placard "DMCA" . If you read through it – the judge merely asked the plaintiff to present facts and only reason Veoh got a summary judgement. Viacom and others will be arriving in court with thousands of pieces of documentation – and this decision will in no way impact Viacom's case against Google. Had this been about anything other than the DMCA, news like this would not even make it to the classified section of a decent newspaper..