YouTube: Viacom secretly posted its videos even as they sued us for not taking down Viacom videos


23 Responses to “YouTube: Viacom secretly posted its videos even as they sued us for not taking down Viacom videos”

  1. NZheretic says:

    Viacom’s actions are just more proof that, in terms of end profits, obscurity has always been a greater problem than any (supposed copyright) violation has ever been.

  2. Anonymous says:

    i’m not surprised, are you?

  3. Diricia says:

    I think youtube should ban all Viacom videos from their site. They can use crowd sourcing from the youtube community to look up and report all Viacom content and simply remove it.

    Viacom have misused youtube and should have their rights revoked.

    • teapot says:

      Viacom have misused youtube and should have their rights revoked.

      I think a more apropriate punishment for wasting so much court time and money over lies should be that Viacom is not allowed to sue anyone for anything for 5 years. That would put a quick end to these stupid lawyerwars.

      You are scumbags Viacom!! I mean, do you have no shame?! Bringing the good name of Kinkos down like that and everything

      • orwellian says:

        I love that idea, being barred from suing. Maybe we could ration lawsuits, give a person one or two a year (while making small claims court immune). People could donate spare lawsuits to groups they support (EFF, Greenpeace, NRA) and the fact that a organization was sitting on 50,000 spare lawsuits could be used to get corporations to comply/back off.

  4. ScottTFrazer says:

    Yes, but Viacom has also shown that the YouTube founders were knowingly uploading infringing content and having discussions about how removing such content would result in a 75-80% dropoff in traffic to their site.

    Looks like everyones hands were dirty in this one.

    • cuvtixo says:

      Do you really think so? The “incriminating” email evidence includes: “Although YouTube is not legally required to monitor content (as we have explained in the press) and complies with DMCA takedown requests, we would benefit from preemptively removing content that is blatantly illegal and likely to attract criticism.”
      So… Youtube execs debate merits of aggressively pursuing infringers (which they are not legally required to do) While Viacom execs conspired to use the U.S. justice system to litigate against Youtube while practicing the same infringement violations they are suing about. I don’t see those as equivalent at all! I hope the judge throws this case out, because Viacom seems to be have gone well past hypocrisy into (nearly?)criminal behavior.

      • Brother Phil says:

        “In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.”

        They (allegedly) uploaded content that would be infringing if not uploaded by the rights owner, and then sued for the presence of material that they themselves had uploaded.

        I think that would be entrapment, malicious prosecution, perjury…

        Definitely criminal.

        Like the bent cop who says “Oh dear. (smash) Your front light’s out.”

  5. Anonymous says:

    Let the pie throwing commence, they waited three long years for this moment holding each others pie, now is the time for some pecan to fly!

  6. Anonymous says:

    A pox on both their houses. Screw ‘em both and the horses they rode in on. I’m expatriating to Flickr.

  7. Super Nate says:

    The punishment should fit the crime. Anything that Viacom sued youtube for that they posted should automatically become public domain.

  8. bbbaldie says:

    It would be so nice to see one of these sleazy copyright-law-abusers abased. I don’t care how guilty Youtube was, FRY VIACOM!!!!!

  9. dubyel says:

    Assuming this information is correct, Viacom’s suit should be dismissed with prejudice. They should be required to pay all fees and costs incurred by YouTube, and they should be subjected to crushing sanctions for frivolous litigation and abuse of the court system. If the lawyers were aware of Viacom’s actions while pursuing this action, they should also be subject to sanctions and forfeit all fees earned from the case.

  10. Avram / Moderator says:

    I think we’ve got a new definition of chutzpah.

  11. Prathap Rajamani says:

    But it would not be possible to “firmly” say that all the youtube accounts were used under viacom influence.

    - Prathap Rajamani

  12. Ed Minchau says:

    It’s called entrapment, and the ease with which entrapment can occur and impossibility of self-policing it all should spell the end of the DMCA.

  13. Anonymous says:

    douche bag corporations.

  14. Anonymous says:

    While I’d love to the judge slap Viacom with a huuuuge fine for their behavior here, I would rather see the judge work out a decision that sets the stage for changing the very broken world of copyright law.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I’m going to assume this is true about torrents of Paramount movies also.

  16. ripplepoppy says:

    Although I’ve lived without cable TV at home for 12 years, I still find reasons to hate Viacom. Funny, how that far-reaching to-the-stars corporate ethic still gets ya. BoingBoing gives me a platform to say this: HEY VIACOM, FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU FOR TRYING TO RUIN OUR INTERNET. and fuck off.
    w000000000000000000000000000000000w I’m impressed. I hope one day I’m a corporation and I can sue anybody for things I DID MYSELF. Hey, I bought this coffee. Now I’m going to sue you for serving me what I asked for BECAUSE I CAN AND NO ONE WILL PENALIZE OR STOP ME.
    [Well, rage aside, I figure Rome fell and Babylon will too. I know how to grow food, do you? Let's dance toward oblivion. We don't have a choice.]

  17. UncaScrooge says:

    If I understand Mr. Doctorow correctly, I believe the standard penalty for this behavior is complete loss of internet access for the Viacom Corp.

    • littlerunninggag says:

      Heh, would three strikes laws apply to Viacom? After all, corporations are people.

      Maybe, as a content producer, they can lead the way by voluntarily doing so?

  18. toyg says:

    Note that this is a *lawyer* speaking. Lawyers don’t usually employ such blunt language when defending, for obvious tactical reasons; when they do, it usually means they think the case is going to be a slam-dunk. In this case, it also means that Google have clear proof of the alleged behaviour, which is very bad news for Viacom.

Leave a Reply