Comments on: Two Smoking Guns and a Cold Case http://larrydownes.com/two-smoking-guns-and-a-cold-case/ Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:43:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: larry http://larrydownes.com/two-smoking-guns-and-a-cold-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1168 larry Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:42:00 +0000 http://larrydownes.com/?p=1151#comment-1168 See <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv02103/302164/165/0.swf" rel="nofollow">Docket Item #165 </a>for Viacom's November 25th, 2009 letter to the judge (filed Dec. 22, 2009) acknowledging that 100 of the 250 clips it withdrew from its claims of infringement were "uploaded to YouTube" by "Viacom or its authorized agents." Those clips, though a small fraction of the 63,000 instances of infringement claimed by Viacom so far, were claimed as infringing Viacom's copyright. The judge ruled against Google's request for partial summary judgment on those 250 items. See Docket Item #165 for Viacom’s November 25th, 2009 letter to the judge (filed Dec. 22, 2009) acknowledging that 100 of the 250 clips it withdrew from its claims of infringement were “uploaded to YouTube” by “Viacom or its authorized agents.” Those clips, though a small fraction of the 63,000 instances of infringement claimed by Viacom so far, were claimed as infringing Viacom’s copyright. The judge ruled against Google’s request for partial summary judgment on those 250 items.

]]> By: James http://larrydownes.com/two-smoking-guns-and-a-cold-case/comment-page-1/#comment-1167 James Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:49:39 +0000 http://larrydownes.com/?p=1151#comment-1167 The fact that people are swallowing the Google argument is pretty funny. If you read the filings - which I did - all that happened is that Viacom withdrew certain clips from litigation from the universe of their copyrighted clips hosted by YouTube that Google *insisted* they identify. Viacom was never suing on the basis of those 250 clips - they were only part of the vast group of Viacom's content that Google asked Viacom to identify for discovery. Notwithstanding Google's hyperbolic letters, the judge saw the truth, and ruled *against* Google. Does anybody do original research any more? The fact that people are swallowing the Google argument is pretty funny. If you read the filings – which I did – all that happened is that Viacom withdrew certain clips from litigation from the universe of their copyrighted clips hosted by YouTube that Google *insisted* they identify. Viacom was never suing on the basis of those 250 clips – they were only part of the vast group of Viacom’s content that Google asked Viacom to identify for discovery.

Notwithstanding Google’s hyperbolic letters, the judge saw the truth, and ruled *against* Google.

Does anybody do original research any more?

]]>