| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Looks like legitimate discovery to meLooks like legitimate discovery to mePosted Jul 5, 2008 16:59 UTC (Sat) by jwb (guest, #15467)In reply to: Looks like legitimate discovery to me by tialaramex Parent article: Notes on the Viacom ruling
I do tend to agree that this discovery action is not disturbing. But I wonder how Viacom thinks they are going to make their case. They must be true believers in the "long tail" theory, because if you look at the all-time most popular videos on YouTube, nearly all of them were uploaded by the copyright owner. http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp&t=a&c=0&l= There's a video of Judson Laipply uploaded by "judsonlaipply", a bunch of music videos uploaded by "rcarecords" and "universalmusicgroup", some Alicia Keys videos uploaded by "aliciakeys", and so forth. Just the top 20 vidoes account for a billion views. The long tail would need to be long indeed to make up the difference. What would seems easier to prove is that YouTube viewers have bad taste in music ;)
(Log in to post comments)
Looks like legitimate discovery to me Posted Jul 6, 2008 7:04 UTC (Sun) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Evidently Viacom thinks it will be helped if it can prove that most of YouTube's business in the early days was based on copyright violation. But that doesn't seem to address the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA, which puts the burden on the copyright owner to issue takedown requests.
|
|
||||||||||||