Comments on: Viacom’s Unusual Legal Tack Against YouTube–And Why It Just Might Work

By: H. Elwood Gilliland III

H. Elwood Gilliland III — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:55:36 +0000

no personcommittee dot or g .. the other case against YouTube that has never seen a single article written about it in any major media or news source. *except a couple web articles regurgitating Chad’s close buddy Michael Arrington, and 1 legal journal entry* It’s the case you’ve probably never heard about. Well, back to my ghetto.

By: Thomas Dillon

Thomas Dillon — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:52:07 +0000

While this is a thoughtful article, Viacom issued its writ in 2007. It is not surprising that they do not rely on what YouTube is up to in 2010.

By: Chairman Miao

Chairman Miao — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:09:54 +0000

The article states: “Napster actually held copies of copyrighted material on its own servers. Later peer-to-peer services avoided such egregious behavior.” That is incorrect. Napster ran a centralized directory service, but the actual infringing copies moved from Peer to Peer (why they call it that, duh), and those copies never transited through Napster servers.

By: Mark Montgomery

Mark Montgomery — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:53:48 +0000

Frostwire is the perfect replacement for LimeWire. The RIAA and the record companies can NEVER stop us! Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com