So is it right to have our own privacy violated due to reasons that are not even our responsibility?
Viacom seems to think so.
Viacom invading our privacy
-
-
i agree totally…
-
Times like these, I wish the Death Note was real and I had one. If I did, here is how the situtation will go. Oh yeah, VE stands for viacom employee.
(inserts Low of Solipsism)
VE 1-He lets view this guys account.
FUNimationrules-Delete
(VE 1 dies from a heart attack)
Viacom Leader-Oh no, VE 1 died from a heart attack, VE 2, I order you to view this guys stuff.
VE 2-Yes
FUNimationrules-Delete
VE 2-ahh koff koff
(VE 2 falls down stairs)
VE 3-Alright, if no one will do this, then I will.
FUNimationrules-Delete
VE 3-ah koff crap
Viacom Leader-Please spare, who ever is out there please sp
FUNimationrules-Deleete
Viacom Leader-noooooooooooo -
This issue doesn't exactly concern me since I'm not in Viacom's sphere of concern, I don't like anything they produce to buy or even pirate it. However, I think that media conglomerates - or any corporate for that matter - have no right to invade the privacy of people on the internet or to impose censorship, restrictions or anything similarly infringing on personal freedoms. If Viacom gets its way, it won't be long before the Federal Government totally extinguishes net neutrality.
I feel "therealweeklynews" was exaggerating somewhat, but I agree with his concerns and views. However, personal inspection is all the more reason for people to ENCRYPT THEIR BLOODY VIDEOS so only a manual searcher could discover it is illegal media. If everyone used different types of codes to protect their uploads, Viacom can't do anything about it.
-
But the point is that they're NOT supposed to be looking in our viewing history in the first place!!!
So people SHOULDN'T have to worry about being inspected.
-
wait how can it be illegal to view something? I can understand uploading and showing it to others but to view something?
Just how does copyright work? don't you acctually have to use or modify whatever they copyrighted to be in violation of it?
Or am I somehow violating their copyright when I'm watching a legit DVD? (Just that they don't mind that one?)
Does anyone have the original article for this?
What the…? Holy smurf am I slow! Until this statement of yours I never even realized that an octopus is actually serving octopusballs. Talk about not seeing the forest because of too many trees. facepalm
-
Orwellcom
BYE YOUTUBE
no jared
-
In b4 Godwin's Law.
What they're doing is quite petty and rather stupid, but whatever.
Oh no they'll know that I really really like Kaiji parodies.
-
The content industry does a SPECTACULAR job of strangling themselves, IMO.
What other business can you imagine that makes it a point to make no attempts to compromise with the outside world?
And the funny thing is, it's not like they have a licence to be assholes– their entire business model is propped up by laws, rather than the merit of their products or an inherent scarcity.
Mark my words-- within 50 years, we won't have copyright as we know it anymore. It's no longer a net benefit for most people.
-
Just how does copyright work? don't you acctually have to use or modify whatever they copyrighted to be in violation of it?
It's illegal to download copyrighted media, but not necessarily to watch it. Streaming is still a form of downloading so it's technically a crime, but watching an already downloaded .mkv at one's friend's house wouldn't be, because one didn't download it.
Copyright can be funny like that.
Or am I somehow violating their copyright when I'm watching a legit DVD? (Just that they don't mind that one?)
When you buy a DVD you agree to an end user contract whereby one is entitled to an unlimited number of views to a licensed product of the distributor. The distributor would naturally want to sell one DVD per person, but they can't financially, legally, or morally enforce that, so the distributors hope that at worst one shows the DVD to one's family. "unauthorized distribution" extends beyond merely replicating a product, but I've never heard of a case of someone pressing charges against a public viewing.
-
What we should do is upload a crapload of Rick Roll Video's and put anything Viacom owns on the title. That may not work, but it will really piss Viacom off.
-
What we should do is upload a crapload of Rick Roll Video's and put anything Viacom owns on the title. That may not work, but it will really piss Viacom off.
You have fun with that.
-
I think we need a little Larry Lessig in this thread:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.htmlAwesome lecture. And he even uses an AMV! (although I would have asked him, "couldn't you have used a better AMV?")
