jerome scuggs weekly 3:03 am "wtf" lsd thread

[PaulOakenfold]

[TagMor]

Omgwtfz Da Cat Has No Eyes

[DankNuggets]

the worst part being the "x's" on his hands. dude's probably completely sober and still making an ass of himself.

nvm he looks like he's 15 anyway

[Zerzera]

Google's already working on an appeal.

I don't understand how you enforce this. What if somebody unknowingly clicked on a bit of copywritten information and then closed it immediately? Wont they be just as guilty as say...Me (INTERNATS PIRATE EXTRAORDINARE!)?

Yes, but it's pretty clear that youtube mainly thrives by the the copyright infringements of the users. You could blame Viacom for not meeting demand of these consumers, but there is no law that forces them to do so.
If it's true that Youtube's profit is based on these infringements than they basically have to settle and pay up - even before they give out user information-. If it stands, this is a mayor blow to the company either way. If they give out the information, who will ever trust google's products that heavily rely on (private) data?
If they settle it might give a signal to other (shady) companies to try them.

While I hope that this verdict won't stand, because it is sort of sick that this kind of data has to be duplicated and passed into the hands of another company, I think Viacom would better be very careful with this data or it might damage their company more than it could ever gain for them. Where one judge might free the way for them to get this data, it doesn't mean that they can't be sued for (mis)using it.

[DankNuggets]

what i wonder is, if youtube and other major internet sites (i don't know if corporation is the right word) hold out agaisnt the judge's orders and are penalized, who or what would step up and take their place. If they refuse to give out personal information, and are put out of business by the government, how does the government intend to challenge every company that wants to take it's place.

it seems that if they do give in and give up the information, they'd hurt their reputation, but they'd stay in business. I just don't see them holding out, saving their reputation, but losing the business. I'd like to see them drag it out as much as possible, but in the end the gov't has infinite resources and it's a matter of time before they crush whoever they want.

and as for viacom's reputation, don't they own most major media outlets? it seems that no matter how bad of a reputation they had, people wouldn't stop watching MTV or CBS or paying for adverstising on their stations.

I'd like to see some good ol' fashioned civil disobedience from youtube and others like it, but it's wayyyy to much to ask from someone who's living the cushioned life to fight for anything besides more money for themselves. It's just that given the size and notariaty of youtube, them taking a stand against the government would hit harder than your average file sharing defendent or small business.

[Squeezer]

Yes, but it's pretty clear that youtube mainly thrives by the the copyright infringements of the users. You could blame Viacom for not meeting demand of these consumers, but there is no law that forces them to do so.
If it's true that Youtube's profit is based on these infringements than they basically have to settle and pay up - even before they give out user information-. If it stands, this is a mayor blow to the company either way. If they give out the information, who will ever trust google's products that heavily rely on (private) data?
If they settle it might give a signal to other (shady) companies to try them.

While I hope that this verdict won't stand, because it is sort of sick that this kind of data has to be duplicated and passed into the hands of another company, I think Viacom would better be very careful with this data or it might damage their company more than it could ever gain for them. Where one judge might free the way for them to get this data, it doesn't mean that they can't be sued for (mis)using it.

I agree with everything you said except for the fact that people will cease to trust Google's products. Most people probably wont hear about it and those that are following the story will understand that Google was forced into this decision. They aren't happy in the last bit to be giving up user information, but they can't very well ignore the court's decision either.

[MetalHeadz]

because supply and demand has NOTHING to do with oil prices being the way they are..its all bin laden! and the govt!!!!

Hmm, you sure about that sweetheart? I actually couldn't think of a resource or good that was MORE affect by supply and demand.

[Jerome Scuggs]

why do people keep trying to blame speculators OR supply/demand? i think we can all agree it's obviously both? this sort of horrible market fluctuation is the result of the failure of keynesian economics which creates a scenario that i can't conceive of as being possible in a truly free market

[Zerzera]

I agree with everything you said except for the fact that people will cease to trust Google's products. Most people probably wont hear about it and those that are following the story will understand that Google was forced into this decision. They aren't happy in the last bit to be giving up user information, but they can't very well ignore the court's decision either.

Yes, they rode the storm of the Gmail debacle easily too, but do keep in mind that this involves incriminating information. And the (most) money generating products of Google are the ones that are linked to persona and consumer behavior and advertising.

It thrives over other companies because of their 'do no evil' way of doing things. But it doesn't matter that their intentions are good if they are eventually tied down as lapdogs by corrupted governments like this. No one would want them to store their info any longer.
And eventually people could sue them because of the empty promise they made when they fail to protect your private info. I am not saying you would win, but it would hurt them. It's a big gray area, and it can catch a lot of wind.

You can't do anything but agree that this is the biggest (and real threat) to the Google company. They heavily rely on their reputation of being 'good', and that's why we allow them to use our data. We give them something and we get so much back. But you know what you do with your dog, your pal, when it attacks your kid? Even when it was your kid that pulled its tail.

It's not that I care much about the US government dispensing my private data to any company that asks for it, because I don't think I am doing anything wrong. But if another company comes with a product that's good enough for me, I might switch where I wouldn't have thought about that before. I might think twice about logging into my Google account or clicking adverts. I never know if I become a politician later in my life, and who knows what happens with the data they store.

[Jerome Scuggs]

you know the more our gubmint continues to shit on everything i begin to like them more and more... makes my job easier

[Kolar]

Google's own lax policies on data retention and privacy of consumers is more concerning. This case just exemplifies that fact. You can't be order by a court to produce something that doesn't exist.

[Kolar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7506948.stm

Google had been ordered to provide personal details of millions of YouTube users to help Viacom prepare its case on alleged copyright infringement.

Google, owners of YouTube, will now hand over the database but without data that could identify users.

Viacom has a $1bn (£497m) copyright infringement lawsuit against Google.

[Jerome Scuggs]

viacom's got the wrong strategy

-pay millions to iranian contras to begin illegally bootlegging viacom data
-let george bush then allow you to illegally wiretap every american
-wait 2 years for immunity from congress

and voila!