R
RadioPatrol
Guest
and what do the IP Addresses have to do with this:
Judge tells YouTube to turn over viewing logs to Viacom
and what do the IP Addresses have to do with this:
Judge tells YouTube to turn over viewing logs to Viacom
G
Goyde
Guest
Well if they are looking for restitutions for viewed copyrighted materials then they will need to have a complete list of all viewers, this information will include IP addresses (if you think you can visit ANY site on the internet and they don't know where you are...I have a couple of bridges for sale..) This information will be used to determine 'losses' due to viewing, and enable the courts to come up with a valid number to throw at google. I seriously doubt each user will be identified, as most will be unaware they were violating copyright laws. But in this day and age, who knows.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
No, it's worse than that.
Viacom wants to sue everyone who's uploaded content with Viacom content in it. They even said that would include people who had a TV turned to CBS in the background of a clip where they were singing for their personal webcam.
Fair Use doesn't exist anymore apparently.
It all comes down to money. Viacom is DESPERATE. CBS is a sinking ship, SpikeTV is a falling rock and their whole media empire is fizzling out, fast. Viacom is desperate for money, and they got a liberal judge who's paved the way for them to #### over their viewers to get it.
I won't even watch a football game on CBS now.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
There aren't any losses. Viacom is too damn stubborn to embrace internet streaming. They're responsible for their own losses.
Every other media outlet offers their stuff online, and in fact free of charge, and every other organization allows users to upload their content as long as they are given their due credit (via video annotations or etc).
Viacom just wants to go wholeshot here and use the typical liberal sue-everybody thing.
NBC Universal, Turner, NewsCorp and Disney saw there was a market in online multimedia, and they embraced it. Viacom did not.
Every other media outlet offers their stuff online, and in fact free of charge, and every other organization allows users to upload their content as long as they are given their due credit (via video annotations or etc).
Viacom just wants to go wholeshot here and use the typical liberal sue-everybody thing.
NBC Universal, Turner, NewsCorp and Disney saw there was a market in online multimedia, and they embraced it. Viacom did not.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bingo...
They're trying to establish an argument for value. Nothing sinister here. Who the hell cares, why would anyone care, what you've been viewing? Where is the threat to liberty? Of course, anyone who has been viewing American Idle videos, I can see using that as a base line rational for deportation.
This is a business move.
They're trying to establish an argument for value. Nothing sinister here. Who the hell cares, why would anyone care, what you've been viewing? Where is the threat to liberty? Of course, anyone who has been viewing American Idle videos, I can see using that as a base line rational for deportation.
This is a business move.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
that is what I was thinking ..... but then you need an account on Youtube to upload so they should have some sort of reg info anyway ....
http://forums.somd.com/consumer-financial-affairs/123962-bought-cd-s-computer-illegal.html
5th or so post down:
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
S
shiki
Guest
and what do the IP Addresses have to do with this:
Judge tells YouTube to turn over viewing logs to Viacom
Just about everything. The ip is basically your internet fingerprint. What computer you are using, where that computer is, who you are...
BOP
Well-Known Member
You say you like debate? How about this? Such a move on the part of the COURT could conceivably have a chilling affect on people's behavior.
Actually, your IP address tells virtually nothing about you except which ISP you're using. Once Viacom gets the IP addresses, they must then go to each and every ISP and get the personal information from *them*. And that's only if you're going straight and not using public WiFi or snagging on someone else's wireless connection.
So Goyde is right that they're not going after individual users, but using that information to get their big fat settlement like the RIAA did with the Napster people. Google should tell them to FOAD and make them spend the money to get a real number.
G
Goyde
Guest
No, it's worse than that.
Viacom wants to sue everyone who's uploaded content with Viacom content in it. They even said that would include people who had a TV turned to CBS in the background of a clip where they were singing for their personal webcam.
Fair Use doesn't exist anymore apparently.
It all comes down to money. Viacom is DESPERATE. CBS is a sinking ship, SpikeTV is a falling rock and their whole media empire is fizzling out, fast. Viacom is desperate for money, and they got a liberal judge who's paved the way for them to #### over their viewers to get it.
I won't even watch a football game on CBS now.
I seriously doubt that a venture into trying to obtain monies from individuals who may have viewed or had a TV in the background on when you-tubin would yield any considerable capital for something the size of Viacom. The average citizen could afford what ? Companies burn through millions of dollars daily, the legal fees involved in pursuing individuals, well not profitable. RIAA did enough to make a statement and to get 'things in place'. This- in my opinion - would be more to set a precedent for future litigation or agenda's. I'm sure certain chronic uploaders will be targetted however. A message will need to be sent. Reduce the numbers by making those who would do it just for fun, or sometimes, avoid doing it out of fear. Thereby reducing the numbers....No demand, no supply.
"Fear is the mind killer..." --- Frank Herbert
Last edited by a moderator:
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
And everyone like you said the RIAA would never go after individual people for downloading music or burning their CDs to computers or burning a copy of a CD for their friends.
Got a surprise there, didn't you?
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
There would be no losses if Viacom embraced the streaming media market like everyone else did. They were the last company to offer their shows on DVD, and they're the last company to offer their media online. If you refuse to keep up with the media trends, I have no sympathy for you.
Viacom's desperate, that's all there is to it.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
G
Goyde
Guest
And everyone like you said the RIAA would never go after individual people for downloading music or burning their CDs to computers or burning a copy of a CD for their friends.
Got a surprise there, didn't you?
No I didn't get a suprise, I knew they would go after enough to make a statement, and the funny thing is if you do your research you will see how many of those lawsuits were settled minimally or dismissed. They only wanted the press. They wanted the word out there was a witchhunt in progress. Remember laws only affect those who abide by them.....locks keep honest people honest....<insert quote here>...It was a message plain and simple. And truthfully, downloading pirated music, in my opinion IS stealing. I don't agree with the tactics used but the crime is still a crime. TBH I am suprised it took this long for someone to do anything about it.
Oh and BTW the RIAA is not a 'corporation' per se , they are an activist group on behalf of musicians who incorporated, their overhead and operation costs are not that of someone like viacom who actually produce something and have a product, not just a litigious organization.
Big diff between the two.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
and a couple members have pulled out due to either Gray area or outright blackhat tactics ... or bad press, or costs exceed results ...
G
Goyde
Guest
and a couple members have pulled out due to either Gray area or outright blackhat tactics ... or bad press, or costs exceed results ...
Case in point.
