Viacom sues Google for $1 billion

Quote from a529612:

GOOG has a tendency to do things that sound "cool" and add nothing to the bottomline.
More...


A lot of MBA's I have worked with spend most of their days going to meetings for this. It must be a course they teach at Business Schools.


"The Principles of Ineffectual Middle Managment"
Spring Semester 2007.
 
Quote from blast19:

You're a moron. Your problem is with the media conglomerates that are trying to protect their product from copyright infringement? You are truly a moron...there is no hesitation in saying that.
More...


fine.. lets look at the anti trust issues. lets look at the control the media has and the multiple laws they break daily. lets look at the millions of lies they have told and the turth they have suppressed. honestly, i dont care one bit about their copyright issues. i care about keeping a free press... when we get that back i will be happy to focus on copyrighting issues.
 
You have to remove emotion from your outlook.

I hate the RIAA, too, but they've been shutting down websites.

This is almost an identical situation to music/file sharing websites.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

fine.. lets look at the anti trust issues. lets look at the control the media has and the multiple laws they break daily. lets look at the millions of lies they have told and the turth they have suppressed. honestly, i dont care one bit about their copyright issues. i care about keeping a free press... when we get that back i will be happy to focus on copyrighting issues.
More...

Haha...another moronic comment. Big media here is just bad at reporting the truth because they're easily swayed.

It's quite humorous that you're defending Google who purposefully censored data because of a government request.

Your points lack anything but silliness.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Google is responsible for copyright violations perpetrated on its website, that it hosts, maintains, and is charged with policing.
More...

Actually, they're not. As I stated in my first post, the U.S. Congress already covered all this back 1996. The law clearly states that interactive services are provided IMMUNITY by the Congress with regards to content posted to their service by users.

Think about this for a second. Aside from the whole video thing, don't you think yahoo, google, aol, etc. would be getting sued every single day (and losing) if they were really responsible for content posted to their chat rooms, message boards, picture and video sharing sites, etc.?? These companies would already cease to exist if that were the case.
 
Quote from Baron:

Actually, they're not. As I stated in my first post, the U.S. Congress already covered all this back 1996. The law clearly states that interactive services are provided IMMUNITY by the Congress with regards to content posted to their service by users.

Think about this for a second. Aside from the whole video thing, don't you think yahoo, google, aol, etc. would be getting sued every single day (and losing) if they were really responsible for content posted to their chat rooms, message boards, picture and video sharing sites, etc.?? These companies would already cease to exist if that were the case.
More...

Do you have a legal citation?

I'm aware of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 ['Fair Use Act'), but I'm not aware of the 96 statute.

Thanks.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Do you have a legal citation?

I'm aware of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 ['Fair Use Act'), but I'm not aware of the 96 statute.

Thanks.
More...
Actually, the law is on Google's side.

DMCA gives them protection as an "online service provider".
MGM vs Grokster protects them...
Since they are not offering themselves as a service for piracy...
And are doing a good job taking down clips within hours of a complaint.

Here is a good article by Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu:

http://slate.com/id/2152264
 
Quote from HoundDogOne:

Actually, the law is on Google's side.

DMCA gives them protection as an "online service provider".
MGM vs Grokster protects them...
Since they are not offering themselves as a service for piracy...
And are doing a good job taking down clips within hours of a complaint.

Here is a good article by Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu:

http://slate.com/id/2152264
More...

whats funny is mark cuban is going to put this on his blog thinking he is vindicated!!!!! that guy is the biggest tool in the world.
 
Quote from HoundDogOne:

Actually, the law is on Google's side.

DMCA gives them protection as an "online service provider".
MGM vs Grokster protects them...
Since they are not offering themselves as a service for piracy...
And are doing a good job taking down clips within hours of a complaint.

Here is a good article by Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu:

http://slate.com/id/2152264
More...

To all the guys that have been bearish on GOOG since the $85 IPO:

Is there some point...
At which you will realize that GOOG is not run by a bunch of pretenders on ET...
But by a few hundred of the finest minds in America?
 
Quote from HoundDogOne:

Actually, the law is on Google's side.

DMCA gives them protection as an "online service provider".
MGM vs Grokster protects them...
Since they are not offering themselves as a service for piracy...
And are doing a good job taking down clips within hours of a complaint.

Here is a good article by Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu:

http://slate.com/id/2152264
More...

I just read that article twice, and I honestly do not believe it makes the hard core legal issues any clearer, or more favorable to Google, even if one accepts Wu's claims.

Thanks for that link though. It's an interesting read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top