Page 1 of 2
#1
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html

What is this world coming to?

Will they pursue legal action against us a la the RIAA?

Are our identities screwed?

Tune in now and state your opinions!
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
Last edited by Ralbert07 at Jul 3, 2008,
#2
that's Über gay
Epiphone G-400
Yamaha Pacifica (Mod on hold due to procrastination)
Rocktron Banshee
Marshall 10CD

Quote by geetarguy13

I've never smoked before but it looks like fun.
#3
Well, as long as they're just doing it to show how many hits the videos are getting and not actually pursuing legal charges against users, I don't mind.
#4
ok i get that they need the numbers of viewers for the case .... but the names and I.Ps aren't really needed at all.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#5
Quote by tommyt
ok i get that they need the numbers of viewers for the case .... but the names and I.Ps aren't really needed at all.

yeah, i have a feeling we're all screwed.

Must Not Sleep.


Must Warn Others.

Gear:
Gibson Special Faded SG
Orange Tiny Terror (Combo)
MXR Carbon Copy Delay
Dunlop Crybaby Wah

3DS friend code: 3995-7035-3562
#6
Quote by an epic mistake
yeah, i have a feeling we're all screwed.


Younapster?

Viaulrich?

My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#7
Quote by tommyt
ok i get that they need the numbers of viewers for the case .... but the names and I.Ps aren't really needed at all.

it's only to ascertain that the number aren't made up.

and it's to see how many USERS are watching the copyrighted material not how many views it has. a person could watch something several times, but viacom would only have lost out on one sale.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#8
Quote by tommyt
Younapster?

Viaulrich?


pretty much yeah.

Must Not Sleep.


Must Warn Others.

Gear:
Gibson Special Faded SG
Orange Tiny Terror (Combo)
MXR Carbon Copy Delay
Dunlop Crybaby Wah

3DS friend code: 3995-7035-3562
#9
Quote by Lemoninfluence
it's only to ascertain that the number aren't made up.

and it's to see how many USERS are watching the copyrighted material not how many views it has. a person could watch something several times, but viacom would only have lost out on one sale.



yeah but trying to cause panic and outrage is more fun that saying that ....
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#10
Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos


I dont know i think user-created videos are more popular.
Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!
In the rays of the sun I'am longing for the darkness
Funny Canadians : Brandon860, Bodom & Scourge
Leader of the I boobs club
#11
Quote by Bodom
I dont know i think user-created videos are more popular.

well this data will decide one way or another.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#12
Fuck Viacom and fuck this stupid ruling. This is ridiculous. A gross invasion of privacy.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#13
Pity everyone is too lazy and apathetic to boycott Viacom.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#14
Quote by Meths
Fuck Viacom and fuck this stupid ruling. This is ridiculous. A gross invasion of privacy.

Viacom's money is worth more than any number of people's rights.
And there's now a legal precendent to prove it!
#15
Quote by MightyAl
Viacom's money is worth more than any number of people's rights.
And there's now a legal precendent to prove it!

Phew, That's a relief.
Provided Viacom's shareholders' pockets are ok who needs privacy?
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#16
copyright is bull**** as long as the credit is given whats the big deal, people are just greedy and they want money
Quote by Smokey Amp
You're a God among men.

Seriously...


Quote by ticklemeemo
Dude, you are like the coolest dude like.. EVER!
#17
Quote by Slashified
copyright is bull**** as long as the credit is given whats the big deal, people are just greedy and they want money

yeah, you shouldn't have to pay for a product.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#18
Hmm, the Swedish government just voted through the FRA-law, which means they can supervise and see exactly what we do on the internet and they can bug our telephones and whatnot. The law even conflicts with the constitution. Now THAT'S bad. It's not like we needed this too.
"A war is coming, I've seen it in my dreams. Fires sweeping through the earth, bodies in the streets, cities turned to dust. Retaliation..."


Check out my amazing band!
An Abstract Illusion
#19
Quote by ..NEM..
Hmm, the Swedish government just voted through the FRA-law, which means they can supervise and see exactly what we do on the internet and they can bug our telephones and whatnot. The law even conflicts with the constitution. Now THAT'S bad. It's not like we needed this too.


Not excactly everything; they're monitoring communication. From all the terrorist attacks we've suffered lately.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#20
On the page, someone posted this:

"The Judge"

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St., Room 2250
New York, NY10007

Phones

(212) 805-0252

Faxes

(212) 805-0389


Just in case anyone wanted to use this information.
#22
Quote by Slashified
copyright is bull**** as long as the credit is given whats the big deal, people are just greedy and they want money




On topic though, I really believe that it's just to see what gets how many views. The legal charges to track down every single person who's pirated something or infringed copyright outweigh the gains made from the free advertisement from said copyright infringement on Youtube...
#23
Quote by Kensai
Not excactly everything; they're monitoring communication. From all the terrorist attacks we've suffered lately.


Those who would surrender a little liberty, for some security, will get neither, and lose them both.

Constitutions exist for a reason, they are not written in stone, but for all that's good in this world do show them some respect.
#24
A true case of



theyre all probably just sitting there thinking about how much money they could get if they took legal action

Edit:
Quote by MiG_853
Those who would surrender a little liberty, for some security, will get neither, and lose them both.


true dat

,--.-'-,--.
\ /-~-\ /
/ )' a a `( \
( ( ,---. ) )
THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A PIG
\ `(_o_o_)' /
\ `-' /
| |---| |
[_] [_]
Last edited by EMGs_rule at Jul 4, 2008,
#26
Quote by MiG_853
Those who would surrender a little liberty, for some security, will get neither, and lose them both.

Constitutions exist for a reason, they are not written in stone, but for all that's good in this world do show them some respect.


I believe it's

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#27
Faggot large corporations.

Seriously, they love copyright infringement, because they stand to gain more from the huge lawsuit following it, than if they had sold the DVDs and **** in the first place.

They're going to have to shut down the whole internet if they want to stop this stuff; but the fact is they don't even want to end it. They just love making a huge ****ing noise about it.
#28
YouTube is owned by Google. Chances are they'll go against what the Judge says and not do it. The US government once demanded that all search engines provide them the info of who searches for what to "protect against terrorism" Google is the only one that refused. Google isn't for that kind of crap so that's my guess.
Quote by joeyj123
I am in awe of your sizzling wit. please, accept this congratulatory e-cookie, and accompanying basket.
#29
Quote by Dance_of_Death
lol i can think of a site that needs to utilize this information.....

amirite?


7chan?
#30
Quote by Lemoninfluence
yeah, you shouldn't have to pay for a product.



or for ten minutes of it anyway .....

I could see an outrage if say youtube had been hosting full films before they've shown in theatres or a day before DVD release .... but I doubt that a few minutes long clip being posted on youtube is going to stop people paying for a product.

Hell if you want stuff for free there are a lot of sites that would suit you better than youtube ever will.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#31
Quote by tommyt
or for ten minutes of it anyway .....

I could see an outrage if say youtube had been hosting full films before they've shown in theatres or a day before DVD release .... but I doubt that a few minutes long clip being posted on youtube is going to stop people paying for a product.

Hell if you want stuff for free there are a lot of sites that would suit you better than youtube ever will.

I've seen entire concerts uploaded in several videos. I've seen full albums uploaded with a still picture of the album cover for the 'video'.

Google Video used to have entire films uploaded.

letting youtube get away with it would be like letting a small time drug dealer go because there are Druglords out there.

That said, I pirate albums because I dislike the way the industry is run.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#32
Quote by Lemoninfluence

That said, I pirate albums because I dislike the way the industry is run.


I do too, but only from bands that have made it big and don't need the money.
#33
Sorry lemon but i'd have to disagree with you on that one personally.

I mean really ... I've watched plently of things online ... i watched all of season 5 of southpark streamed online for free ... didnt stop me going out and buying the dvd.

As far as your point about google video goes ... the key phrase there is used to, i watched supertroopers on google video once ... next day it was taken down, it was up for at the most 2 days before the makers had it removed.

Sites like google video and youtube have these things set in place ... when someone wants their copyrighted content removed they go through due process .. it keeps everything simple for both parties and as it's pretty much impossible to review every single video before it's uploaded it's the best solution there is.

Viacom is trying to make a point that really doesn't need to be made .. the world and it's granny know that people upload copyrighted material to sites like youtube ... and the process is there to stop that from being an issue .... basically Viacom is having a big hissy fit ... and asking to be paid to do it.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#34
Quote by tommyt
Sorry lemon but i'd have to disagree with you on that one personally.

I mean really ... I've watched plently of things online ... i watched all of season 5 of southpark streamed online for free ... didnt stop me going out and buying the dvd.

As far as your point about google video goes ... the key phrase there is used to, i watched supertroopers on google video once ... next day it was taken down, it was up for at the most 2 days before the makers had it removed.

Sites like google video and youtube have these things set in place ... when someone wants their copyrighted content removed they go through due process .. it keeps everything simple for both parties and as it's pretty much impossible to review every single video before it's uploaded it's the best solution there is.

Viacom is trying to make a point that really doesn't need to be made .. the world and it's granny know that people upload copyrighted material to sites like youtube ... and the process is there to stop that from being an issue .... basically Viacom is having a big hissy fit ... and asking to be paid to do it.

I'd say that they object to google making money off their product. even if the video is removed, google have still made money from the Ad revenue generated from people watching that video before it was removed.

and I used 'used to' because I haven't been to google video in a long time.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#35
So in you're opinion it's ok for Viacom to act like little bitches because of an advertising deal that

A: google will make money from no matter what video it's shown alongside

and

B: Viacom make no money from in the first place (the advertising not being directly linked to anyone specific video)
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#36
Quote by tommyt
So in you're opinion it's ok for Viacom to act like little bitches because of an advertising deal that

A: google will make money from no matter what video it's shown alongside

and

B: Viacom make no money from in the first place (the advertising not being directly linked to anyone specific video)

someone's illegally hosting their material and is making money off it.

if it was a torrent site doing that via paid membership, then most people wouldn't have a problem with them suing.

the point is that the data is needed to decide whether or not the majority of youtube's traffic (and therefore revenue) is generated by illegal content. if this is the case then youtube's no better than any torrent site.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#37
Again thought .... all these videos have views counters .... they don't need the names of people who have viewed them ... no matter what way you argue it

even saying that people may have viewed it multiple times doesnt matter as they still need the veiws counter data for the thousands upon thousands of unregistered youtube users who may have veiwed their content.

oh and once again ... google aren't making money from their material, theyre making money from a seperate advertising deal.

(by the way im not trying to argue with you about this ... just trying to understand you're view point on this )
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#38
Quote by EMGs_rule
A true case of



Isn't that the guy from Doom?
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#39
Quote by tommyt
Again thought .... all these videos have views counters .... they don't need the names of people who have viewed them ... no matter what way you argue it

even saying that people may have viewed it multiple times doesnt matter as they still need the veiws counter data for the thousands upon thousands of unregistered youtube users who may have veiwed their content.

oh and once again ... google aren't making money from their material, theyre making money from a seperate advertising deal.

(by the way im not trying to argue with you about this ... just trying to understand you're view point on this )

It's only the username and IP that's being handed over. for unregistered users I assume they'll just have 'unregistered' and then the IP or they'll discount those users.

it's to get a semi accurate representation of where it's traffic goes. and It's better than just using the view counter thing.

and saying that they're not making money off the content is like saying Zappp isn't making money off people's interest in guitars.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#40
Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom

users names .... not usernames.

and yes, zappp gets advertising deals from peoples interest in guitars ... but saying that someone is only visiting youtube specifically to see viacom material is like saying that McDonalds only make money from the apple pies

people visit Youtube for a hell of a lot more than 1 specific companies material, thats why youtube gets advertising deals .... and again .... viacom can have the material removed ... straight away ... they aren't losing any money from this, it doesn't damage their company in anyway.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
Last edited by tommyt at Jul 4, 2008,
Page 1 of 2