Via BB
[h3] Viacom: privacy-hating hypocrites [/h3][a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);" href="vny!://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1136"]Ed Felten has noticed[/a] an interesting wrinkle in Viacom's suit against YouTube -- Viacom says that YouTube contributes to copyright infringement by [em]allowing users to have private videos[/em], because those videos might infringe on copyright. [blockquote]In addition, YouTube is deliberately interfering with copyright owners' ability to find infringing videos even after they are added to YouTube's library. YouTube offers a feature that allows users to designate "friends" who are the only persons allowed to see videos they upload, preventing copyright owners from finding infringing videos with this limitation.... Thus, Plaintiffs cannot necessarily find all infringing videos to protect their rights through searching, even though that is the only avenue YouTube makes available to copyright owners.
[/blockquote]
[a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 191);" href="vny!://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003734.shtml"]Lawrence Lessig sums it all up nicely[/a][span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 191);"]:[/span] Viacom got the world's most generous copyright law in 1998 with the DMCA and it's [em style="font-weight: bold;"]still[/em] not enough for them! The YouTube suit makes recourse to the terrible Supreme Court decision in Grokster, seeking to prove that YouTube "induced" copyright infringement: [blockquote][blockquote]Ok, so just about 10 years after the content industry got Congress to adopt one of the most sweeping changes in American copyright law (aka, the DMCA), the content industry has decided that it doesn't like one part of that law — the Safe Harbor Provision that protects sites such as YouTube. But rather than go to Congress to get them to change the law, the content industry, knowing Congress would not change the law, turns to its new best friend — the common law of copyright, as articulated by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Grokster. Why burden Congress with the hassle of law making when you've got a Supreme Court eager to jump in and legislate? [/blockquote] [/blockquote]
