YouTube, Viacom Fight Gets Fiercer

Almost exactly three years ago, Viacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement, and since then, neither side has been able to say much in public.  But today, 108 pages' worth of court documents were released, and YouTube also issued a more comprehensible, 865-word statement.

In the statement (which was posted on the YouTube Blog), Zahavah Levine, YouTube Chief Counsel, raised several interesting points.  One group of claims made Viacom sound like an absolute villain, too.

Levine wrote, "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."

Sound far-fetched?  Well, here's another accusation of Levin's, and this one has been verified.  He wrote, "Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site.  As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement.  In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself."

Obviously, YouTube feels very strongly that it's in the right.  If a judge decides otherwise (and it remains unknown when a ruling might come down), we remind you: Viacom asked for $1 billion when it first filed its lawsuit.

BBB Warns About Online Payday Lenders

The Better Business Bureau is warning people about the practices and claims of some online payday lenders.

"Desperate times are leading people to the Internet to apply for payday loans and many are falling deeper into debt after getting tangled up with a lender who has zero regard for the law," said Stephen A. Cox, President and CEO of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

"Unlike a payday loan that you might get from a local business, online payday loans require your bank account number and, as a result, the borrower is at the mercy of the lender as more money than they counted on is withdrawn from his or her account."

Hundreds of people have complained to the BBB after signing up for a payday loan on sites like OnceClickCash, 500Fastcash and rbloans. Consumers complaints said they agreed to what they thought was a one-time payday loan, usually a few hundred dollars to be paid off in two weeks. They provided their bank account information to the lender and the money was then deposited.

The arrangement leads to a debt spiral.  All of the subsequent payments went toward paying off recurring finance charges and never toward the principal. As a result, consumers report paying two and three times the amount of the original loan and still having the same amount of principal to payoff.  One Massachusetts woman who received a loan from Ace Cash Services said she made over $1,700 in payments to payoff a $225 loan.

Many consumers were surprised to hear that the online lender was not licensed by the state and charged interest rates well over what was allowed by their state laws. When confronted, the lender usually responds they don't have to follow state or federal laws, claiming they are based in another country or on a Native American reservation.

"The bottom line here is that if you are handing over your bank account information online to get a payday loan without doing your research, you are setting yourself up to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars more than you bargained for," added Cox.




 

Report: Rupert Murdoch “Ready To Sue” Google

Although a few months have passed since the last big flareup, News Corp. may still be willing to go to war with Google.  A fresh report indicates that Rupert Murdoch is indeed prepared to take the search giant to court, and has been talking to Microsoft about an exclusive deal, too.

Gabriel Sherman recently published a long profile of Murdoch for New York magazine, and within the profile, quoted someone he described as "a senior media executive."  This person said with regards to the CEO and chairman of News Corp., "He's pretty tightly wound up over Google and has been ready to sue them.  He doesn't trust them at all."

Then there was another interesting tidbit: apparently the Chief Digital Officer of News Corp., Jonathan Miller, "has also been in talks with Microsoft about possibly pulling all of News Corp.'s content from Google and signing an exclusive distribution deal with Bing."

Unfortunately, potential timetables weren't outlined; there's no telling whether Murdoch is willing to spend years negotiating with Google, or if he'll unleash the lawyers next week.

Still, it sounds like Murdoch's statements about blocking Google weren't just so much bluster or a bluff.  A showdown over whether or not online news should be free remains possible.

Should Social Media Be Held Accountable for User Actions?

A judge in Milan, Italy has convicted three Google executives over a video uploaded to YouTube in a case, which could have serious implications for social media and ultimately, the web in general, at least in Italy. The video, uploaded back in 2006, featured a group of school kids bullying an autistic child. Google says it worked with Italian authorities to help ID the person responsible for uploading it, and the uploader and other participants from the video were sentenced to community service.

Now, in 2010, Google executives David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes(3 out of 4 defendants) have been convicted for "failure to comply with the Italian privacy code." They were all found not guilty of criminal defamation.

Should these Google execs be held accountable? Comment here.

"In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload," writes Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel - Europe, Middle East and Africa on the Google Blog. "We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question."

This is a case of a business being held accountable for user-generated content. Isn't the entire web generated by users? What if Google's search engine (algorithmically) indexed something illegal. Should company execs be penalized, even if they comply with authorities' requests for removal of such content? Ask yourself these questions:

-  What if YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. had to shut down because it couldn't control the things users post?

- What if every blogging platform had to do the same?

- What if you went to jail for comments posted on your blog?

You're not likely going to go to jail for comments posted on your blog, but the point is, that by allowing people to post comments on your blog, you are allowing user-generated content, that you can't necessarily control until after it's been posted, unless you don't let them go live until approving them. Google is being held accountable for content that users uploaded, which was not in their control until after the fact. YouTube users upload 20 hours of video every minute, according to Google.

You can see why this case is much bigger than just the specific instance it involves. The case is subject to appeal, but if it is not overturned, what will this mean for the web? Talk to ArisYulianta and Friends... what you think.

"The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police," says Sucherman.

"To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video," he says. "They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video's existence until after it was removed."

He goes on to talk about how the case "attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built," also mentioning that European Union law dictates that hosting providers have a safe harbor from liability as long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. "If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear," Sucherman says.

If rulings such as the one against these Google execs were to become commonplace, how much do you think that would affect the social media industry? Companies like Google, Facebook, MySpace, etc. couldn't let users upload content, which essentially means social media couldn't exist. User-generated content couldn't exist. How could you blog? How could you leave a status update on Facebook, or upload a family photo to Picasa? There is always the possibility that some user could make a death threat or upload child porn, so if the companies behind the services that were used to commit these crimes were held accountable, how could their businesses continue?

That's why Google is not only upset about the ruling against its executives, but calls it a "serious threat to the web."

Should Google (or any other site) be held responsible for content that users upload (even when said content is removed)? Share your thoughts.

Next Page »