VIA Forum Topics
- All Comments on VIA
- General Discussion on VIA
- Investing in Dividend Paying Companies [view article]
- Spielberg and Co. Look to India for Next Move [view article]
- Why Online Video Business Is a Joke [view article]
- Where Is the Online Video Advertising Revenue Going? [view article]
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
- The Issue of Trust is with Google, Not Viacom [view article]
- Bollywood Coming of Age [view article]
- YouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution [view article]
- Media Stocks: Beaten Down, Almost Buyable [view article]
- Judge Demands That YouTube Coughs Up IPs [view article]
- Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
- Viacom's Lawsuit Could Mean YouTube's End Game [view article]
loading ...Recent VIA Articles
- Is Content Still King in the Digital Age?
- Why Online Video Business Is a Joke
- Paramount Pictures Is Feeling the Credit Crunch
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News
- Where Is the Online Video Advertising Revenue Going?
- The Issue of Trust is with Google, Not Viacom
- Investing in Dividend Paying Companies
- Google's Team Opens Up at Sun Valley Conference
- YouTube’s 4% Problem Is Really Part of The Solution
- Media Stocks: Beaten Down, Almost Buyable
- Full List of Articles »
Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
When Chinese government asked Google, Yahoo, and other Internet companies for the lists of users who had accessed certain websites, that ended up in certain arrests, there was a huge hue and cry, even a congressional investigation. Now, a U.S. company is asking for the same and it may ended up making certain people (this time, a very large number of people) criminals, why there is no such hue and cry? Are American people valued less than Chinese, even by ourselves? Or, are American corporations mightier than Chinese government? ReplyGoogle Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
Wow ... wouldn't that be great for the envirnoment, Eric! I have a much betterr idea. Why doesn't Google quit pretending to be the mprie that "dies no evil", admit it has made ahuge mistake in the copyright protection world, and compensate those that have been alarmed appropriately.Why do I feel they'd rather throw their customers under the bus?
Here's an article I wrote this week that adresses that issue. It is long but some of yoru readers may enjoy it.
**********************...
Ding dong ... the witch is dead!
... or at least she is starting to melt!
Wow ... I would say this is very good news for the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case in New York may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.
I have been following this infringment case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?
In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either") then who do we really have to blame for this chaos? You guessed it.
It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their publicly financed clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful Internet distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.
Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.
Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.
I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous, excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on, can drag these cases on for years - haven't we seen it all?
What do the legal terms all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil , Russia , India , and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam the content back here to the states."
Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson and the Spice Girls weren't already in the 'Public Domain'?"
Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.
"What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"
This kind of unlawful activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING is concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.
I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.
As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.
Congratulations New York . Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered"... copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.
... which old witch ... the wicked witch!
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.co...
Reply
Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
It would be nice to see the environmental activists fight it out with the privacy activists ReplyGoogle Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
Erick Schonfeld, we come here to read THOUGHTFUL posts. This one is pure folly, while the one on Microsoft is sensationalized to the degree of gag. We get enough of that elsewhere. ReplyGoogle Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form [view article]
as if we don't have enough issues with our environment already. Let's kill more trees while we're at it. Replywarrior
Viacom's Lawsuit Could Mean YouTube's End Game [view article]
What people aren't realizing about this suit is much more then just money. It is the privacy issue. Viacom has asked for and received the right to every record of every video ever watched and by whom. Is anyone else not bothered by this? The govt tried and failed recently to get such information from You Tube. What will this mean in the long run. The privacy of every person that has ever clicked on a You Tube video will be a thing of the past. Viewing trends will be compiled and when the US congress is trying to quietly slip past laws such as HR 1955 (which has already cleared the house floor) and its companion sitting in the senate waiting for a vote S 1959, which pretty much translates to the setting up the legislation of thought crimes and the use of the internet to perpetuate "terrorist" ideology (which is now being termed as anyone that complains about the govt, current administration or the war a terrorist, etc), well I shudder to think of the precedence of this type of ruling. What was this judge thinking? Well obliviously not about the people that’s for sure. This needs to be taken to the Supreme Court and people need to seriously pay attention to this. If You Tube goes away, what will be next and will we then need govt sponsored websites to get our "free" information from? ReplyJudge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves [view article]
The US is in desperate need the kind of privacy protections that are in place in the EU. It really pisses me off when I call up the gas or cable company and they demand that I give them my SSN and mother's maiden name in order to talk to, say, a billing rep. Private enterprise collects way too much info on their customers and has no problem sharing that info with whoever they choose irrespective of whether their customers want them to share that info. We have a few select laws like HIPAA but most have no teeth like the financial privacy laws that allow your bank to share your data with their marketing affiliates who can then share it with whoever they please. ReplyJudge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves [view article]
"Well just put that in the hands of the political police and they will take you down with the IRS of any other means possible."The Govt' can already track you. One likes to think they sometimes get a warrant to do so. But giving scum-bag media police, like Viacom, rights to engage in a "fishing expedition"? Sh*t no! Reply
Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves [view article]
Once you have this information then the FEDs will be able to see who has opinions that differ from the current government thinking. Let’s say you post a video that shows Bush is a lying dictator that has killed 100s of thousands of people for his rich oil buddies.Well just put that in the hands of the political police and they will take you down with the IRS of any other means possible. Just look at what the FBI and that pervert panty wearing freak Hover did to Martin Luther King.
Hey boys they control the radio and the cable and the news papers and the radio so don't cross them because we tell you what to think. Once they get complete control of the internet you will be forced to standing on the corner on a soap box and yelling. They will then arrest you for disturbing the peace. George Orwell was just off by 28 years, the brave new world has arrived.
Reply
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
Ding dong ... the witch is dead!... or at least she is starting to melt!
Wow ... I would say this is very good news to the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.
I have been following this case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?
In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either").
It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.
Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.
Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.
I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country, - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on - haven't we seen it all?
What do they all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam it all back here to the states."
Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson wasn't already in the 'Public Domain'?"
Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.
"What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"
This activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING in concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.
I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.
As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.
Congratulations New York. Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way who have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered"... copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.
... which old witch ... the wicked witch!
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.co... Reply
Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves [view article]
So when will the judge be required to take a drug test? ReplyWall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
interesting remarks..coal? steel? potash? Helsi ReplyJudge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves [view article]
What do you expect from a Reagan appointed moron? Hopefully, this will get tossed. Not to say every GOP judge is stupid: Penfield Jackson issued a correct, complete, and well-reasoned decision in DoJ vs. MSFT (Unfortunately "W" and his band of graft-receiving cronies tossed the penalty). But THIS guy needs to re-read the Bill of Rights. In NO WAY is Viacom or any other sleazeball media company entitled to know who watches what video. If I listen to "Democracy Now" (or for that matter Rush Limbaugh) on my terrestrial car radio, is Viacom entitled to KNOW that? No way. That might reveal more about my political leanings than I want Viacom to knw. It is a free speech issue. ReplyAbdel Maguid
Top 10 Media Trend Predictions for 2007 [view article]
Epic Systems together with Beemode (beemode.com) have developed a Data Visualization software "Trend Compass" almost ready to be released soon. It is an extension to Gapminder which was invented by a Swedish Professor. You can view it :- gapminder.org
It is a new concept in viewing statistics and trends in an animated way. It could be used in presentation, analysis,research, decision making, etc.
Here are some links :
- Part of what we did with some Governmental institution:
epicsyst.com/visual.sw...
- A project we did with Princeton University on US unemployment :
epicsyst.com/main3.swf
- April 2008 Media Monitoring on Cars TV ads (ad duration vs occurences over time) :
epicsyst.com/ads/cars....
- Ads Monitoring on TV Sattelite Channels during April 2008. Pick Duration (Ads daily duration) vs Repeat (Ads repetition per day).
www.epicsyst.com/ads3/...
Next one is my favourite it covers a lot and it accumulates his earnings too, 43 Million USD :
www.epicsyst.com/sampr...
I hope you could evaluate it and give me your comments. So many ideas are there.
You can test the software by uploading data on our website and getting the corresponding Flash charts. This is for a limited number of users.
Regards.
Eng. Hisham Abdel Maguid
epicsyst.com Reply
Hollywood Producers Get Tough With SAG Actors [view article]
The single most important issue is the Internet. AFTRA failed in its Schedule A talks to protect most New Media production or get residuals anywhere near comparable to prime time or cable television (even by AFTA's low standards). SAG needs to stand strong on New Media issues. Reply