<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.disqus.com/</link><description>Internet and Technology News - Mashable is the world’s largest blog focused exclusively on Web 2.0 and Social Networking news. With more than 5 million monthly pageviews, Mashable is the most prolific blog reviewing new Web sites and services, publishing breaking news on what’s new on the web.</description><atom:link href="https://mashable.disqus.com/thread_09752/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:29:43 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-8486866</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is good news.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sites ok...</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:29:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975258</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Uh..&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The people who had their video taken down can take Viacom to court, sue for damages, and the court will grant them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There's a law on the books protecting people from having their video's taken down by anyone who claims to be the copyright holder, but is not. This means the victim can automatically collect damages from Viacom. It's been done successfully before.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Particularly for the gentleman who's video got taken down by YouTube, even though he is the creator, he needs to call any attorney versed in web copyright law. They'll take it on contingency, and Viacom will likely settle before going to court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sue Viacom. It's free money.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Bill G</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:53:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975257</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The media companies are badly losing the public relations battle. This fiasco just shows how sue happy the attornies are. Having the TV shows on Youtube only helps them build viewership. These guys are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in an effort to protect a dieing business model. One day, maybe they will wake up and actually do the right thing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Visit &lt;a href="http://www.newlifeauctions.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.newlifeauctions.com"&gt;http://www.newlifeauctions.com&lt;/a&gt; to learn how to start a successful eBay business.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Hyperbole</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:39:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975256</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If I was the clip creator or the person in charge of Youtube, I would've gotten together with whichever one I wasn't and decide to put the clip back on Youtube in a week or so. If Viacom finds out again and gripes, do the same thing again, but maybe take a little longer to do it so they might stop checking for it... and so on like that.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jackson Ferrell</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:52:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975255</link><description>&lt;p&gt;stupid video, but hilarious blunder. If I were him I'd publicly humiliate Viacom. They need to be dragged through the mud enough so that they will always remember that they were built not by investors, but from the viewership and indie content that each one of their 'acquired' media purchases began as.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Save Videos</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:47:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975253</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is hilarious,&lt;br&gt;Viacom claiming the rights of work they did not produce.&lt;br&gt;Now they'll copyright anything just because they have showed it on TV.&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://chelomarco.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://chelomarco.blogspot.com/"&gt;http://chelomarco.blogspot....&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marcochelo</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:17:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975252</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I see this copyright fiasco as a problem with the disconnect with the law and business. Although the law and precedent may indicate that you have a winning lawsuit, it doesn't always mean a lawsuit is in your clients best business interest. This is something not taught in core curriculum law school. The decision to sue or not often depends on whether your client can afford the cost. Thus, you have companies suing their customers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would never, once I'm an attorney, recommend any of my clients to sue their customer base without first consulting with a PR firm. This way the client can get the bigger picture before just pulling the trigger. It makes no sense to take money from profits, to sue a potential customer. This is especially true for electronic media.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The better way for Viacom to handle this is too provide the content with commercials and advertising included. I think that this is a fair trade. The public gets to see what they want and Viacom makes a bundle from increased advertising profits. The hard part is being customer friendly. For example, if Viacom sees their content on a blog, rather than sending a threatening letter, it would send a revised clip with advertisements included. Problem solved.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Elq&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.iwantdollars.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.iwantdollars.blogspot.com"&gt;http://www.iwantdollars.blo...&lt;/a&gt;  (Make money online)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Elq</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:12:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975251</link><description>&lt;p&gt;RTFA! bacon&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"He created a commercial where, armed with a light saber, Knight vowed to help fight against those that were destroying the education system. Viacomâ€™s VH1 found it entertaining enough to feature on its show â€œWeb Junk 2.0â€³ without Knightâ€™s permission. Knight didnâ€™t mind the extra recognition, and posted the clip from â€œWeb Junk 2.0â€³ on YouTube."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">editor</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:35:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975250</link><description>&lt;p&gt;this is completely legal if youtube gave viacom the rights to air said clip.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;read youtube's TOS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bacon</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:14:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975249</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think EFF should get involved -- tossing out cease and desist letters shouldn't be done lightly.  Also, someone should follow up and make another example of people using the DMCA when they're not the copyright holder.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Dufault</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:10:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975248</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Another question to ask is how long can the industry afford to rely on a subjective analysis of Fair Use of content.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Left to their own devices and without an objective means to evaluate fair use, those who create and publish content and those who monetize it will always end up in opposite corners  . . . and ultimately in the courts.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rich Pearson</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:53:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975247</link><description>&lt;p&gt;i like the fact that no one has pointed out though that the politician's original ad was using Star Wars entities and whether that's copyright infringement as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;either way though, viacom needs to settle down and grow up.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">subface</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:03:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975246</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is good news.  Now users can take copyrighted material and just add some commentary -- voila, fair use!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Boomer</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:28:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975245</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This post is on Digg already. Hopefully it reaches the homepage.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mark</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:23:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975244</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Or lets go a little bit deeper. Viacom sends out video clips in mov format to bloggers. Viacom's marketing department has sent me a total of 5 video clips and asked me to give them free exposure for thier TV shows. So I'm like ok cool...I'll do it. So I uploaded the clips to Youtube because Viacom doesn't give bloggers free hosting on Viacom's servers. So I upload the clip and I run it on my site. A few months later I get a take down notice from YouTube stating that I had illegal clips in my account and that they where removing them. YouTube then fully shuts down my YouTube account. After 6 e-mails back to YouTube they re-open my account but remove the clips send to me via Viacom's PR departments, Vh1's PR departments.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">greasyguide</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:14:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viacom: It&amp;#8217;s Not Copyright Infringement When We Do it to You</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/08/30/viacom-infringement/#comment-5975243</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This would be a good opportunity to spread the word and give Viacom a taste of its own medicine.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">emonome</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:37:19 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>