http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuQuwuBpslA&feature=related

Great interview....

Damn. Pulled down by Viacom. Missed it...

Not to be a downer here, but be careful about downloading video from YouTube ESPECIALLY video from Viacom. YouTube's owner Google recently was ordered by a judge to turn over the names of all the people who have downloaded Viacom video from the YouTube site. You could have a lawyer knocking at your door in the future if you continue.

Yeah, and Google managed a settlement to avoid that after all.

In any case, tens of millions of people have downloaded videos from YouTube, including I presume many Viacom videos. Do you really believe a lawyer from Viacom is going to knock on all those doors or try any action against you? Don't count on it.

Andrew

I don't think the average joe, watching a video on the system, is at ANY risk.

Note the lawsuits pending on these things are for DISTRIBUTION.

Anybody just browsing Utube will have an extremely easy defense in that they just used the service as anyone would. Additionally, they would see it as fair use, in that perhaps Viacom wanted the video there for promotional purposes.

Viewing the video is an infringement, but it's only an infringment because the intent of the uploader was infringing!

The downloader is not expected to know that, and quite possibly can't know that, so any litigation is pretty high risk for Viacom.

This is why they focus on those actually making the infringing copies, and those uploading those copies. Both of those acts can be far more easily linked to be acts of infringement.

If it's there, view it.

Ignorance is 9/10ths of the law.

In this case, it really is.

IMHO, Viacom is doing the data mining to bring the case for Utube to be mostly for infringing uses.

This is one of the important tests. Back when the whole VCR debacle happened, the networks and movie studios fought the VCR tooth and nail. Really, they feared unauthorized copies and their impact on their business.

They didn't see how the greater utility of the technology as a whole would actually benefit them as much as it did the users of it. The rental business came out of no where, for example, and they profited off of it huge.

Still do, even though it's clearly waning now.

BTW, one of the things about VHS is that all consumer grade gear has it's color bandwidth limited to one half of that normally available. This meant any consumer copies would not be up to par with commercially made efforts.

It also hobbled the camcorders meaning it's just not all that easy to produce a professional grade VHS tape, even though the average joe has every right to do so. (bastards)

Anyway, the argument made to permit the sale of the VCR, with recording capability was that the technology had substantial non-infringing uses, and that's still a key test.

My gut says Viacom is wanting to get at the heart of this by demonstrating in a way not possible with the VCR, that perhaps there are not substantial non-infringing uses, and therefore Utube then falls afoul of the law.

This could get really ugly for Google, should they meet that burden! Viacom will be working with ACTUAL data, that they got Google to certify was actual, so their damage award is gonna have teeth, unlike many where simple aggregate data is used to come up with damages.

So Viacom is gonna look at the material, user names, times, dates, and who contributed the video and boil all that down to some use cases, with those cases being infringing or not, fair use or not.

Then they will have to meet the burden for their assessment on those. Bet they card stack it too.

User created content will be virtually ignored as it competes with theirs, and also helps Google make their case that Utube has substantial non-infringing uses! The EFF and others will have to weigh in on that. This is perhaps one of the biggest defenses that Google and Internet people powered publishing efforts in general, have in their favor.

Also, there will be a fair use discussion coming out of that whole thing, in that Viacom sees their material on the site, but it might actually be fair, if infringing. (satire, parody, critical, educational, etc...) Viacom will attempt to get the definition of fair, narrowed as much as possible. The implications of that extend way beyond this case in that restricting "fair" inhibits everybody through legal precedent.

So, that leaves them to discover just how much, flat out, unfair and infringing material, exists! There is a lot of it. What nobody knows, but Google and soon Viacom, is the ratio of that to fair material.

And that whole mess, being the core of their complaint is what won them the right to the data.

What I don't understand is how come Google was not allowed to anonymize it. Big pain in the ass, having all that tagged user data in the hands of a clearly hostile company, when they can very easily make their case without having the records be personally identifiable.

The court ruling on that in Viacom's favor is disturbing...

You can still get your Rush fix from the Colbert Report.

Ahhhhhh thank you Littlesongs.

My day is better already.

That was a good interview. Had no idea RUSH had not appeared on American TV in so long.

Love the next album title bit: "This is Bullshit"

It really is, and the "Rock and Roll Hall of Shame" is ridiculous for not inducting them!

Rolling Stone did a nice piece on Rush last issue. I did not know the background about Neal Peart. Good article. They really love what they are doing.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21490991/rush_never_sleeps

If you haven't read Ghost Rider, Neil's memoir about the time after he lost his family, and his journey back to life, don't wait any longer.

To just say it's "an inspiring story of one man's journey back from the brink" doesn't do it justice.

As Bilbo Baggins said, "There and back again!"

And a most excellent song that should get airplay!