Well yes, using the comparison to video services that re-show vloggers stuff without honouring the license, youtube would be comparable to a site where the users submitted peoples rss feeds, as opposed to the site themselves deliberately going out and selecting content to put on their site without having the right.
Im not totally clued up on DMCA but I think it also affects how 'reasonable' viacoms demands will be seen as. If viacom send youtube a list of the URLs of every piece of content that infringes their rights, then I think youtube have to act. If viacom demand that youtube work out what the offending content is, and come up with a system to prevent such content ever getting uploaded again, then thats different and may be part of any interesting precedent this case could set, if it gets that far. DRM wont save viacom or youtube from the horrors of illicit user uploads, because most of that content is getting ripped onto computer from sources that are insecure, such as TV or DVD. OK maybe if none of the new & future 'secure' systems get hacked in a huge way like the DVD protection scheme was, then eventually they could secure their stuff at the source, but as we've seen a lot of people question whether a DRM war is any more winnable for them than the war on drugs. Dont understand your point about the bills. Someones gotta pay for real services that use resources. And the things you mentioned are living expenses, they are a part of this lifestyle and this life. They arent essentials like food or warmth, but they feel pretty 'essential' to a lot of people. We live the life of kings & queens in the past, in terms of annemities, but mostly we have to do a lot more hard work. Har har the early promises of the modern electric home and all its gadgets, designed to save time to give people more leisure time. Then the rise of gadgets designed to occupy that time. And the internet can be a strange mix of both work and leisure, almost simultaneously. But ooh, do these things really free us? Maybe some of that time and energy that the functional home gadgets saved is now spent at work. Does the internet allow ou to espeace your desk, or does it make you bring your work home with you and spend even longer on it? Such are the paradoxes of our age, I wonder what the luddites would make of it all. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the > users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending > the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once > they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from > uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is > fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT > may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely > proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. > > My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the > Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will > only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees > that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because > what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one > could afford. > > The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now > is, "OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to > make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the > privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty > pirates". They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for > their own failing.....it's silly.....but it will happen. And that will > be bad for all of us. > > Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, > that are not directly related to your living expenses... > > phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for > that....think about it..... > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > wrote: > > > > > > > That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have > > been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and > > essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to > > remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same >argument > > that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to > > aggregate our content sans repercussion. > > > > > > > > > >
