Comments on: Audacity: Viacom copies YouTuber’s video w/o permission, then accuses YouTuber of infringement http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/ an unofficial blog on YouTube + the video file sharing industry Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:57:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Viacom admits mistaken DMCA notice after EFF gets involved « The Utube Blog http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-44390 Viacom admits mistaken DMCA notice after EFF gets involved « The Utube Blog Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:14:33 +0000 http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-44390 [...] admits mistaken DMCA notice after EFF gets involved News: I reported here a couple weeks ago about the questionable DMCA notice that Viacom (MTV) sent YouTube to take down [...] [...] admits mistaken DMCA notice after EFF gets involved News: I reported here a couple weeks ago about the questionable DMCA notice that Viacom (MTV) sent YouTube to take down [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-42370 Jonathan Bailey Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:59:49 +0000 http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-42370 Though I think that SillyRabbit's analogy goes a bit too far, I have to agree with the sentiment of the other commenters. Viacom doesn't appear to have broken any laws here. THey have a strong fair use argument for their use of the commercial and Knight has a much weaker one for his posting of the VH1 clip. Though I would feel that Viacom has an ethical responsibility to allow Knight to use the clip. Legally Viacom seems to be in a much stronger position. That is sad, and frustrating, but seems to be the case. Though I think that SillyRabbit’s analogy goes a bit too far, I have to agree with the sentiment of the other commenters. Viacom doesn’t appear to have broken any laws here. THey have a strong fair use argument for their use of the commercial and Knight has a much weaker one for his posting of the VH1 clip.

Though I would feel that Viacom has an ethical responsibility to allow Knight to use the clip. Legally Viacom seems to be in a much stronger position. That is sad, and frustrating, but seems to be the case.

]]> By: SillyRabbit http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41803 SillyRabbit Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:06:53 +0000 http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41803 Under the law, what Knight did was worse. In court, there's a huge difference between offering commentary on a political ad, and just playing unmodified copyrighted content on a site like YouTube. You may not like it, but that's the law. Political ads are not protected from use in commentary, and broadcasting unadulterated copyrighted commentary is not protected from DMCA takedowns. If you really believe that Knight retains rights to VH1's content, doesn't it then make sense that I would retain rights to your blog, based on the fact that *my* comments are included? Under the law, what Knight did was worse. In court, there’s a huge difference between offering commentary on a political ad, and just playing unmodified copyrighted content on a site like YouTube.

You may not like it, but that’s the law. Political ads are not protected from use in commentary, and broadcasting unadulterated copyrighted commentary is not protected from DMCA takedowns.

If you really believe that Knight retains rights to VH1’s content, doesn’t it then make sense that I would retain rights to your blog, based on the fact that *my* comments are included?

]]> By: utubeblog http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41801 utubeblog Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:47:01 +0000 http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41801 No, I think the audacity is using the guy's video on a commercial show without his permission and then accusing him of infringement after he posts the clip of his video as shown by VH1. The guy has legitimate point: it's his creative work, not VH1's, that VH1 is showing without his permission. If Viacom thinks what the guy did is infringing, then what about what Viacom did? Which is worse? No, I think the audacity is using the guy’s video on a commercial show without his permission and then accusing him of infringement after he posts the clip of his video as shown by VH1. The guy has legitimate point: it’s his creative work, not VH1’s, that VH1 is showing without his permission. If Viacom thinks what the guy did is infringing, then what about what Viacom did? Which is worse?

]]> By: SillyRabbit http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41791 SillyRabbit Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:08:47 +0000 http://theutubeblog.com/2007/09/01/audacity-viacom-copies-youtubers-video-wo-permission-then-accuses-youtuber-of-infringement/#comment-41791 Commentary about political speech is given the most latitude under fair use. Are you really suggesting that media outlets shouldn't be permitted to use political ads in their commentary about a candidate? Where was the outrage when TV stations were running the Obama/Apple YouTube ad? Why should this yahoo's ads be treated differently? Commentary about political speech is given the most latitude under fair use. Are you really suggesting that media outlets shouldn’t be permitted to use political ads in their commentary about a candidate?

Where was the outrage when TV stations were running the Obama/Apple YouTube ad? Why should this yahoo’s ads be treated differently?

]]>