Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

[WizeOne]

What's up with this? I read the article but did not come away with an understanding of what the objective was. Who could possibly have a right to know what you watched on YouTube.

As far as I know there are no infringement questions. YouTube guards what gets offered on their site.

http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080703/1194791404540.html?.v=3

 

[JB]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

The Feds believe those records include evidence of wrongdoing by evil persons and specific wrongdoing by a specific evil person. They convinced the Judge to issue the warrant.

 

[roscoe]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

YouTube guards what gets offered on their site.

http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080703/1194791404540.html?.v=3

No, they really don't.
THere are tens of thousands of copyrighted videos on youtube.
Viacom wants to be paid.
They want to know which videos were watched by who, and how many times, to make their case for a dollar settlement.

Its all about money.
I don't believe the Feds are involved with any charges, and the Feds are not getting the records, only a group of advisors so they can compile the data to put real numbers to Viacom's claim of financial losses.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Is this like the music deal and now they're going to sue you for watching copyrighted video?

 

[roscoe]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

No, they are suing YouTube for distributing the copyrighted video.

 

[marine4003]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Lawyers are getting way out of hand,sheesh,i got a letter from a pack of thieves about the $4.00 charge for "admin.review" tacked on my new car purchase...$4.00? you've got to be kidding me,now its copyright infringement,pretty soon lawsuits will crop up based on citizens quoting song lyrics or phrases from movies.this is nuts.Not to mention a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[WizeOne]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Is this like the music deal and now they're going to sue you for watching copyrighted video?

There is a substantial difference there RF. With the 'music deals' people were downloading the material. With YouTube, you are simply watching the material. You are in no way taking possesion of it.

 

[SgtMaj]

Removed

Removed

Removed

 

[SgtMaj]

Removed

Removed

Removed

 

[NSBCraig]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Copyright infringement is no joke and it hasn't been since 1976 when title 17 was passed.

They are going after YouTube for distributing other peoples property illegally and knowing they were doing it. If someone was making a large profit off selling or distributing your property and you had the overwhelming legal right to go after them for your money I'm sure that not one of you would hesitate.

The thing to complain about here is companies like YouTube who make a business decision to break a federal law and rip people off for profits cause in the wash after it's all settled they are still going to make more then if they just did the right and legal thing instead of being crooks.

The situation with Napster and the RIAA was that Napster was designed from the beginning as a method for people to steal in mass. It was the entire marketing idea from moment one. They knew it and they got rich off it even after paying for their illegal activities. That was their plan and it worked.

They knew what they were doing and they covered their butts accordingly. This is where the people that got sue by the RIAA got scewed by Napster not the record industry.

If they read the agreement that they clicked ok to they would understand that they were not supposed to do what Napster was created for because it is illegal and they will be responsible if they do.

Kind of makes you come up with all kind of unpleasant terms for the guys at Napster.

So where we ended up wasn't even a bunch of people being sued for the thousands of songs (pieces of intellectual property) that they downloaded (stole), it was them being sued for leaving them in their computer and constantly logging on to Napster to allow thousands of other people to steal that property (thousands of items) by downloading them off their own computers at home.

It's sad that they got rapped up in Napsters web of money making theft racket, but seriously they all knew they were stealing even if they never read the agreement.

Noone can honestly say I only had enough money to buy a couple CD's so instead I went online and gave money to someone that will help me steal anything I want and there is nothing the people I'm stealing from can do about it and then act like they never saw it coming.

Theft is theft, is theft..... and Google and YouTube should pay the people a share of the sum they have made from being theives (they know they are stealing).

 

[tommays]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

The networks want to get payed for there stuff and make a LOT of free viewing now just look at http://www.hulu.com/ all network stuff and many movies coming now


YouTube was supposed to be for YOUR video not THERE video

 

[SgtMaj]

Removed

Removed

Removed

 

[NSBCraig]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Your so not well informed dude sorry but your way off.

YouTube makes money of it period it doesn't matter how it's that they do. Which is why they are getting a court to figure it out wether or not they owe money.

Nope wrong again on Napster it was people who downloaded thousands of songs and didn't take them from there shared file- i.e. shared them with others. (that's how the system works it's nothing like email and yes it was intended for stealing the kid that started it stated so) It all was proven in court sooo...

The RIAA should should be imprisoned that's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Nobody got sued $9000 for downloading one song come on now that's stupid to even say.

Kill your attitude bro it's fine to disagree but going crazy over things that your so way off on makes you look silly.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

No maybe not $9000 a song but a lady in Mo. was sued by the riaa and it was $1000 per song she had to pay.......She had like 160 songs.... So maybe she did steal em but give me a break $160,000 fine for theft.......Yes thats fair

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

And yes it is theft but those who say your stealing from the artist.....thats not true in most cases. Most bands make very,very little off their recordings. Its the record lables and suits that are having thier product stolen..........Being in the business for 2 decades I would be lieing if I told you I feel bad for them.........

 

[NSBCraig]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Yeah I totally agree that's way to much, the court seemed to have a reason for it though probably to put an end to the totally out of hand situation.

The fact is though that she stole 160 pieces of property knowingly and willingly. For some reason people seem to think that just because they did it in their own home with a computer it's not stealing but it is.

The people I feel bad for are the parents that allowed their kids to use their computers unsupervised and then got sued. But then I guess it's the same as when all the kids ran up chat line bills.


As for not stealing from the artists, yeah it kind of really is. Sure artist royalties are unreal low for major label bands but then they made that deal so that company would spend a whole lot of money promoting and marketing them, so any time the labels do bad the artists get hurt. Think about how many bands got dropped cause they didn't sell enough to be worth the investment just because people got the product for free.

Luckily we're getting out of that phase and now artists don't need the major labels (the killers of all that is cool).

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Not to highjack this thread but I do understand it just bussiness and these bands sign on the dotted line but I know a bunch of bands personaly that had the lable even given them a little support they may have been able to make a living.

What a label says they spend on recording and promoting a band can really differ from what it really costs them and before the band makes 1 red cent on sales the labels get their money back so the fact is most bands(signed and touring) have a life expectancy of about 3 yrs........While labels continue to do things like sign a band with the intention of the band becomeing a loss ( No Promotions or help at all for the band) When the band cant pay the label back for thier unsucessful non selling CD recording, they are then sued by the label and the label then rights off the loss on their taxes..............

I know for a fact many bands put thier......well the labels music up for download just to be able to promote.

By the way I feel its stealing regardless if I like who is being robbed or not. I just hate when I hear people say your ripping off the artist........

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Also more and more bands are signing with smaller indie labels and then doing things like skipping the sell C.D.s in stores and offering down loads for much less then the labels sold the music for......So I guess if someone was downloading their music without paying it would be stealing directly from the artist........Bad

 

[NSBCraig]

Re: Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records

Oh yeah the killer is the way they work it the label loans you the money for you to record your music and then you not only owe them the money back but they own the recording.

That's where a lot of bands got beat up by Napster because they never sold enough to pay the label back (at their tiny royalty rate) so they still owe. If they try to put out something on their own or go to a different label that first label wants to get paid!

That's why it's so great that everything is expanding and yeah we don't need them anymore. Just like we don't need Clear Channel Communications and LIve Nation either.

But if anyone is really worried about the YouTube thing just remember that when they first started these questions of legality came up all over CNN and in the trades. Everyone has known about it and it's been a long time coming.

There is no reason to think that it will have any effect on any of us.

It's simply you do not have the right to make money in anyway of others intellectual properties without paying them.

And it isn't at all like Napster which was proven to be designed only to steal music in a court of law a great deal of time after we all knew it was.

 

[SgtMaj]

Removed

Removed

Removed