Talk:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

Bizarre allegation in Background section

In Background there's a line that reads "But at the same time Viacom was infringing the rights of many YouTube users by stealing and uploading their videos without permission." What on earth does this refer to, and does anybody have references for it? Mariuskempe (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK that wasn't something that Google alleged in this case. No citation provided by contributor of that sentence. Removed it. Hcookeecs (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit revived in 2011

It looks like the lawsuit was appealed in October 2011 in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Should that be mentioned here? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-viacom-google-idUSTRE79H8EK20111018 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576639162223294344.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.h.kim (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Other side of the story

Apparently, most of the videos were false claims based on mere search results. Anyone thought of that? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting that "most" of the videos were false claims? The blog post you linked to calls the takedowns "bullshit" but only mentions one video inappropriately taken down. At the end of that post, it links to a blog post by Jim Moore, the guy whose video was taken down. In his post, Moore just mentions the takedown and wonders if he could sue Viacom.

Moore apparently rallied some legal bloggers like John Palfrey to speculate about the legal implications and to wonder aloud how many other false notices there were, but they didn't come up with much. Palfrey did get Viacom to admit to a 0.05% error rate (about 60 videos out of 100,000), and this statistic was later mentioned in a Fox News article which is a reference on the Viacom article: Media Companies Blast YouTube for Anti-Piracy Policy. Foxnews.com (February 19, 2007). Retrieved on July 13, 2011.

So I see no evidence that there was a significant number of false claims. —mjb (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still worth noting that 60 of them were false claims. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A related claim by Youtube was that Viacom itself was uploading videos to Youtube:

"For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube." (Zahavah Levine, Chief Counsel, personal blog March 18, 2010)

The article make no comment on this aspect of the case at all.--216.31.124.248 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added it to the article. —mjb (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100702111029/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gvFPgT3MNrzaN7r-Y37eFI-qv4bA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvFPgT3MNrzaN7r-Y37eFI-qv4bA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

why so many dots in the quote section last part?

why are there so many dots there like its some kind of narrative in a book? did they cut out words from it? if that is the case its not a quote then, would be better to have multiple quotes rather then what it looks like its fabricating it if that's the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.2.139 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)