YouTube BITCHSLAPS Viacom

[Digifiend]

What it means is Google don't have to pay compensation if someone uploads Viacom-copyrighted material. Doesn't stop Viacom ordering stuff to be taken down though - as long as they do actually own the copyright (so they can't have Power Rangers taken down, as they're only the broadcaster, they don't actually own it!)

 

[KingRanger]

so they can't have Power Rangers taken down, as they're only the broadcaster, they don't actually own it!)

You don't know that. It might be in the contract that they have every right to have it taken down.

 

[Digifiend]

If that was the case they'd have started already!

 

[KingRanger]

If that was the case they'd have started already!

Who says they haven't?

 

[big_j_ny]

Question is.........what the hell shall be the aftermath of this outcome?

No. Viacom is still within their rights to have Youtube take down any material that constitutes copyright infringement. All this suit means is that Youtube can't be held liable if users post copyrighted material (as long as they take it down when they receive a notification of copyright infringement).

Not sure why people are getting so excited; unless I missed something, this isn't some big landmark case that is going to radically affect the way we do things or anything. Absolutely nothing is going to change other than that copyright holders can't sue the video-sharing sites themselves for copyright infringing material posted by users as long as the sites take down or block access to the copyrighted material when they receive a notification claiming infringement (assuming of course that the content actually is infringing on the holder's copyright).

So really, this means absolutely nothing for anyone other than the copyright holders and the website owners.

This was ultimately the answer I was looking for.

Yes, YouTube did BITCHSLAP Viacom........but it doesn't mean Viacom won't stop annoying the living hell out of YouTube to take **** down

 

[KingRanger]

If there is stuff up that falls under viacoms copyright or what they own they have every right to get it taken down.

 

[Black Ranger RX]

No. Viacom is still within their rights to have Youtube take down any material that constitutes copyright infringement. All this suit means is that Youtube can't be held liable if users post copyrighted material (as long as they take it down when they receive a notification of copyright infringement).

Not sure why people are getting so excited; unless I missed something, this isn't some big landmark case that is going to radically affect the way we do things or anything. Absolutely nothing is going to change other than that copyright holders can't sue the video-sharing sites themselves for copyright infringing material posted by users as long as the sites take down or block access to the copyrighted material when they receive a notification claiming infringement (assuming of course that the content actually is infringing on the holder's copyright).

So really, this means absolutely nothing for anyone other than the copyright holders and the website owners.

The only good news is YouTube is not going to be shut down. Because Viacom can't sue YouTube.

The bad news is, there's going to be more copyright chaos.

 

[hmf_master]

Justice, it's all we can hope for now really

Viacom took down hundreds of videos in one fowl swoop that contained no copyright infringement just so that they could sue Youtube for more money

True now good thing can happen and better videos will show up on youtube

 

[Kamen Rider Godzilla]

True now good thing can happen and better videos will show up on youtube

No, no, no. Dammit, read the thread. Absolutely nothing is going to change other than that Youtube can't be sued for copyright infringement when users upload copyright infringing material as long as they take down the material when they are notified.

 

[MrMonk]

The only good news is YouTube is not going to be shut down. Because Viacom can't sue YouTube.

YouTube wouldn't have shut down. Google would've just paid out handsomely.

KRG is correct. For users, nothing changes. This was a purely business case.