Viacom has stolen from people after ordering Take Down...

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

...notices to youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fpGNRmc ... oXLKeHi9qg

We can't let them keep doing this! Its not only unethical, but its hurting everyone.

[Mikey]

Forget Viacom, someone put a round behind this guy's ear and put me out of his misery. I could make up a fairy tale about any company in the world and call it "evidence," too.

[Lighthawk]

Forget Viacom, someone put a round behind this guy's ear and put me out of his misery. I could make up a fairy tale about any company in the world and call it "evidence," too.

I got to agree, I couldn't stand more than 3 minutes of this guy. Is there a summory of what this is all about?

[Nickswitz]

Forget Viacom, someone put a round behind this guy's ear and put me out of his misery. I could make up a fairy tale about any company in the world and call it "evidence," too.

I got to agree, I couldn't stand more than 3 minutes of this guy. Is there a summory of what this is all about?

Yeah, basically viral video's that people put up are now copy written according to him. Which is absolute bs, and you can link anything from YouTube, it's not copy written either, so it's basically a load of bull.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'm no expert on copyright, but I'm pretty certain that uploading a video to Youtube doesn't mean you own the copyright to it. If you deliberately put it up in a public forum, no dice.

[Nickswitz]

Yeah, the whole thing is bs.

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

Actually, its not. The people who upload those videos up onto Youtube do own them under the terms of service. That's explained in the video. In the terms of service as well, you have to include a link back to Youtube if you take the video back to another site. Ifilm has disabled that function, violating the TOS of Youtube.

Viacom is stealing from people, as simple as that.

I was expecting more of an outrage reaction here...

[Nickswitz]

Ok

What does the terms of service say? I've never uploaded a video to YouTube, so I don't know.

[Mikey]

The guy started out by saying that ifilm's encouragement of any upload from any source was an encouragement to infringe on copyrights. He's full of shit. Only unauthorized use of copyrighted material is copyright infringement. You want an outrage reaction, you've got it - somebody please tell this guy that he's not Michael Moore, and please go back to wearing his tin-foil helmet and uncovering the "truth" about Roswell. Making shit up in order to dump on a large company, simply because it's a large company, is both passe and the height of assholery. He's just lucky that he's too insignificant for Viacom's legal team to pursue a slander litigation that would make his head swim.

[Lighthawk]

Actually, its not. The people who upload those videos up onto Youtube do own them under the terms of service.

I find that hard the believe given the insane number of youtube uploads that are commercials, shows, show clips, ect. Stuff that is already clearly owned and copyrighted. How exactly does that work?

That's explained in the video. In the terms of service as well, you have to include a link back to Youtube if you take the video back to another site.

That seems poorly thought out on youtube's part. I've never joined youtube, so have never read the TOS. I have however, linked videos from there. That is the kind of rule that, if true, needs be put somewhere that it is clearly seen even by people who haven't joined up.

Ifilm has disabled that function, violating the TOS of Youtube.

But a TOS only applies if you join up to a site, doesn't it? Considering you can go through youtube all you want without joining, that seems easy enough to get around without breaking anything.

Viacom is stealing from people, as simple as that.

I guess in the spirit of things, but technically, anything on youtube is free anyway. How do you steal something that's being given away? At worst you could really say that they may be failing to give credit to the people responsible for producing a given vid.

I was expecting more of an outrage reaction here...

I don't think most of us see this as a big issue, especially as none of us (as far as I know) have made and uploaded any videos to youtube. There's not much moral outrage in this, and it's utterly impersonal. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn. Sorry.

[Sionnach Glic]

Actually, its not. The people who upload those videos up onto Youtube do own them under the terms of service.

How? I've browsed through the Terms of Use page and the related bits, but I see nothing that says "If you upload a video here you have the copyright to it." On the contrary, when you go to upload a video, on the very first page you'll see it states:

By clicking upload video you are representing that this video does not violate YouTube's terms of use and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorization to upload it.

Emphasis mine. This does not mean "when you upload a video it's copyrighted to you." It means "when you upload a video you are agreeing that it does not violate copyright policies". If I made a video of my dog and uploaded it, I do not have the copyright to that video. Anyone is free to upload it again and again anywhere they wish, because it's public domain. The only point where it becomes iffy is if someone uses that video to try to make money (trying to sell a DVD of it, or charging a fee to watch it on their website, or whatever). Viacom's site does none of that, and so does not violate copyright.

In the terms of service as well, you have to include a link back to Youtube if you take the video back to another site. Ifilm has disabled that function, violating the TOS of Youtube.

His bit about their violation of the Terms of Use on the Embedded Player is his only legitimate complaint. YouTube explicitly states that you cannot modify or block the player's functions in any way, yet Spike.com has indeed disabled the bits of the player which would normaly bring you back to YouTube. Even the little "Watch this on YouTube" has been disabled. That's a clear violation of YouTube's policies.

But a TOS only applies if you join up to a site, doesn't it? Considering you can go through youtube all you want without joining, that seems easy enough to get around without breaking anything.

No, TOS does not only apply if you join the site. It applies if you use something made by the site (such as the YouTube player) as well.

Viacom is stealing from people, as simple as that.

No, they aren't. They're taking videos that are public domain and putting them on their own site. No legal violations at all.

Additionaly, Spike.com appears to charge no fees for uploading or viewing as far as I could see. Thus they make no revenue from simply posting the videos (this guy's argument that they get money from advertising is on rather shaky legal grounds). So even if they were to start paying people for making the videos they upload....zero percent of nothing is still nothing.

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

The guy started out by saying that ifilm's encouragement of any upload from any source was an encouragement to infringe on copyrights. He's full of s**t. Only unauthorized use of copyrighted material is copyright infringement. You want an outrage reaction, you've got it - somebody please tell this guy that he's not Michael Moore, and please go back to wearing his tin-foil helmet and uncovering the "truth" about Roswell. Making s**t up in order to dump on a large company, simply because it's a large company, is both passe and the height of assholery. He's just lucky that he's too insignificant for Viacom's legal team to pursue a slander litigation that would make his head swim.

He's not full of shit. And not only that, Viacom is full of assholes, suing kids who don't even know they break the copyright law. I mean kids as young as 10 years old. All because they upload one or two videos of one of their series up onto youtube.

You really don't know what else Viacom has done to people?

[Reliant121]

Harsh as it sounds, break the law, they break the law. Theres some ground for the not knowing, but really I have to agree with punishing.

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

Harsh as it sounds, break the law, they break the law. Theres some ground for the not knowing, but really I have to agree with punishing.

Against 10 year olds? There has to be some limit, especially since they are minors.

[Nickswitz]

Well considering in the U.S. they couldn't, unless you find this lawsuit, it's bullshit.