Comments on: Althouse on YouTube lawsuit

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:36:25 +0000

What makes him a turd (according to the quote above) is the DIDN’T try to prevent people from misappropriating his property… he just billed them for it afterwards.

That is, instead of notifiying YouTube that there was possible infringement going on, then filing suit over the infringment that had already allegedly happened, he simply filed suit, giving time for FURTHER infringement (which he then claimed as further damages).

If that’s what actually happened, then yes, he’s a turd.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:18:59 +0000

Barely colorable. The analysis at http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002802746 is convincing. If anyone should be covered by the safe harbor it's fun little sites like youtube.com. This is like saying AOL is liable because selling broadband connections is "integral to infringement commmitted by its users."

By: nbernhardt

nbernhardt — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:44:46 +0000

This practice is common in Germany. Lawyers send hundreds of warnings ("Abmahung") to website owners with a bill of $1,800 - per song. See http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/58666 As far as I know Germany is the only country where the website owners (in this case) have to pay the bill.

By: BTD_Venkat

BTD_Venkat — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:38:37 +0000

I don’t get it. It seems like he’s just trying to prevent people from misappropriating his intellectual property? I don’t see how that makes him a turd.

He’s alleging that they didn’t take down infringing copies promptly enough. And that Youtube is integral to infringement commmitted by its users. Pretty colorable claims.