<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts On The Viacom-YouTube Lawsuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/</link>
	<description>Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:29:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: t.t</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17456</link>
		<dc:creator>t.t</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s a new kid on the block that solves all the problems
Jalipo.com
Watch out for it]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a new kid on the block that solves all the problems<br />
Jalipo.com<br />
Watch out for it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terence</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17191</link>
		<dc:creator>Terence</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regarding public sentiment, is copyright infringement, of this type of material, a dead issue?

Overall, do people care?

I just know that downloads of SOMETHING, from SOMEWHERE, legal or otherwise, seem to be a part of everyday life: A quick right-click &#039;n save of an mp3 off of some blogger&#039;s collection, and then transferring it to one&#039;s online locker; viewing the latest eppy of a fave show at some site, so that waiting around for a network to buy, then slap it up, isn&#039;t an issue (I live in OZ, the latest stats say on average we&#039;re 17 months behind); after seeing it on MTV, checking out Christina&#039;s &#039;Candy Man&#039; clip on YT, so as to post it to one&#039;s blog, but finding the first one has been removed, then finding a dozen more, plus more of the same on other sites.

I mean, the examples above are just three piddly actions over, say, one day. And my actions are the same as tons of people around the world. I&#039;m not saying it&#039;s right, it certainly doesn&#039;t feel wrong, it just feels like the everyday, the mundane.

So the question begs: On a global scale, and in a general sense, does the public really care?

Sometimes I think it&#039;ll take the exec-boomers dying off, to make room for new blood and more appropriate ideas, ideas the b-b mob can&#039;t seem to get their heads around, before we see some type of cohesion between the Viacom-type crowd and end-users. End-users have a long list regarding choice, and they go to those who meet their demands ... And YT&#039;s only one such stop.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding public sentiment, is copyright infringement, of this type of material, a dead issue?</p>
<p>Overall, do people care?</p>
<p>I just know that downloads of SOMETHING, from SOMEWHERE, legal or otherwise, seem to be a part of everyday life: A quick right-click &#8216;n save of an mp3 off of some blogger&#8217;s collection, and then transferring it to one&#8217;s online locker; viewing the latest eppy of a fave show at some site, so that waiting around for a network to buy, then slap it up, isn&#8217;t an issue (I live in OZ, the latest stats say on average we&#8217;re 17 months behind); after seeing it on MTV, checking out Christina&#8217;s &#8216;Candy Man&#8217; clip on YT, so as to post it to one&#8217;s blog, but finding the first one has been removed, then finding a dozen more, plus more of the same on other sites.</p>
<p>I mean, the examples above are just three piddly actions over, say, one day. And my actions are the same as tons of people around the world. I&#8217;m not saying it&#8217;s right, it certainly doesn&#8217;t feel wrong, it just feels like the everyday, the mundane.</p>
<p>So the question begs: On a global scale, and in a general sense, does the public really care?</p>
<p>Sometimes I think it&#8217;ll take the exec-boomers dying off, to make room for new blood and more appropriate ideas, ideas the b-b mob can&#8217;t seem to get their heads around, before we see some type of cohesion between the Viacom-type crowd and end-users. End-users have a long list regarding choice, and they go to those who meet their demands &#8230; And YT&#8217;s only one such stop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark T</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17184</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:20:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/thoughts-on-the-viacom-youtube-lawsuit/#comment-17184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My understanding that YouTube was (only) required to remove material which was identified by the copyright holder as infringing.  This exception allows &quot;common carriers&quot; to be exempt from litigation resulting from actions that their users/subscribers take.  

Does Viacom allege that they notified YouTube about specific material and YouTube did not remove it?  Or are they asking YouTube to review all content posted and judge which content may be infringing?  In my non-lawyer view, the former situation makes YouTube liable for damages and the latter is Viacom overreaching.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding that YouTube was (only) required to remove material which was identified by the copyright holder as infringing.  This exception allows &#8220;common carriers&#8221; to be exempt from litigation resulting from actions that their users/subscribers take.  </p>
<p>Does Viacom allege that they notified YouTube about specific material and YouTube did not remove it?  Or are they asking YouTube to review all content posted and judge which content may be infringing?  In my non-lawyer view, the former situation makes YouTube liable for damages and the latter is Viacom overreaching.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
