To display the most relevant entries to you in priority,
vote for the stories you are interested in
()
and reject those that you are not interested in
()
Here's one more point concerning the motions filed in the YouTube case
by Google and Viacom. We had mentioned in our analysis that Google highlights the details of
Viacom's rather large "stealth marketing" campaign to upload videos to YouTube, but Eric Goldman
points out that the practices Google uncovered certainly sound
like they cross the line of what the FTC says is legitimate: YouTube also scored points for
its descriptions of Viacom's stealth marketing practices. Although these facts only help YouTube's
legal posture a little, the lawsuit's discovery process has unveiled some non-public information
about Viacom’s practices that should be interesting to the FTC and state attorney generals.
Viacom's alleged stealth marketing practices are aggressive--close to the permissible line, if not
over it. As a result, they might be exactly the kind of consumer misdirection and inauthentic
online content that the FTC has been railing against, and we know the FTC is looking for test cases
in this area. So, a lawsuit that began as Viacom v. YouTube might morph into FTC v. Viacom. This is
one of the known risks of picking a fight--once started, you can't control where it goes.
Indeed, Google presents rather detailed evidence of the lengths Viacom went through to fool users
into thinking that clips were uploaded by people other than Viacom. Among Viacom's actions:
Hiring "an army of third-party marketing agents to upload clips on its behalf"
Having the uploads come from names that are made to look like random users
Using non-Viacom email addresses to sign up for accounts -- with the company admitting that
it wanted to use email addresses that "can't be traced" back to the company.
Leaving Viacom offices to go elsewhere to do the uploads (such as Kinkos) to avoid connecting
the uploads to Viacom.
Altering the footage of videos to make them appear unauthorized: "so users feel they have
found something unique."
While certainly helping Google make the point that it's ridiculous to expect it to know which
videos were legit and which were infringing, these also seem to certainly violate the spirit of the
FTC's recent guidelines on
questionable "stealth" marketing practices. As Goldman notes, if the FTC is looking for a high
profile test case, they may have just been handed a ton of useful evidence.
Who says you
can’t attract a substantial number of users on a shoestring budget?
Spain-based social networking platform provider Genoom,
which lets family members communicate amongst each other on private online community sites, is
about to sign up its millionth user.
This isn’t exactly a huge milestone, but I think it is noteworthy since the startup is
operating on a mere $80,000 in seed
funding, which it raised from Midatel roughly 3 years ago.
Genoom was launched in July 2007 and will cross the 1 million registered users mark by this
weekend. According to company spokesperson Bob Samii, the site is now available in 17
languages and counts more than over 10 million profiles from families all over the world.
On the Genoom website, users can add family trees, personal information, photos, videos, and
related documents about ancestors and living relatives alike, limiting access to uploaded
information through invitations and custom group privacy settings. This makes the service
effectively a marriage between genealogy and social networking.
Genoom offers a handy Facebook application,
allowing users to access their family tree and communicate with family, all while logged into
their Facebook account.
This week, documents from Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube for copyright
infringement were published, and the three-year-long-and-counting lawsuit has again been brought
to the public's attention. In case you haven't been following the case, here's a quick timeline
of the major events that led up to the lawsuit, and those that occurred since the original
complaint was filed:
May 24, 2005- Viacom subpoenas YouTube for information about a user who uploaded
clips from Paramount Pictures' "Twin Towers."
June 2005- Viacom's board of directors approves a plan to spin off assets, which
become known as the new Viacom, Inc. That new company is given control of Paramount, while the
core company reforms as CBS Corp.
January 2006- 20th Century Fox sues YouTube to have content from Fox TV shows
such as The Simpsons and 24 removed from YouTube.
June 2006- YouTube and NBC partner to create NBC channel on
YouTube for Internet exclusives, clips, and trailers.
July 2006- Viacom and NBC Universal back journalist Robert Tur in his suit
against YouTube for illegally posting his videos of the 1992 L.A. riots. The legal brief said,
"YouTube incorrectly contends that the DMCA permits it to avoid any responsibility for the
content on its commercial website and completely shift the burden to content owners to discover
and notify it of infringements."
March 2007- Viacom General Counsel Michael Fricklas in a Washington Post op-ed says that YouTube was not just a passive content
host, and that it is fully aware of what it does. "If the public knows what's there, then
YouTube's management surely does. YouTube's own terms of use give it clear rights, notably the
right to take anything down."
May 2007- British Premier League files class action suit against YouTube for
copyright infringement, says Google "knowingly misappropriated and exploited this valuable
property," when it allowed users to post footage from its football games.
June 2007- YouTube introduces Content ID to help content owners identify if
their content is being used, gives them the option to remove unauthorized content, or monetize
it.
August 2007- Google asks Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen
Colbert to testify against Viacom in copyright hearings.
Comedy Central is a Viacom property.
March 2008- Viacom President and CEO Phillippe Dauman says "We've already
achieved a number of things with this lawsuit. It took a long time, but because of our actions,
YouTube has moved in the right direction. They're where they should have been all along."
June 2008- New York District Court rules that Google has to turn over user IDs
and IP addresses to Viacom. Angry users upload nearly 5,000 "Viacom Sucks" videos to
YouTube. Google is later allowed to make this data anonymous.
July 2008- Movie studio Lionsgate partners with YouTube for a branded channel
with ad-supported official content from the studio.
April 2009- Content owners discus "TV Anywhere" plan to tie Web-based video
content into cable subscription fees. Viacom CEO Dauman says, "People are used to paying for
video subscriptions," sees it as a good idea.
June 2009- "TV Everywhere" network scheme launches.
July 2009- Some claims from the Premier League's 2007 suit against YouTube are
dismissed, but claims for "statutory damages for works not registered in the US" are allowed.
September 2009- Google gives individual copyright holders access to the Insight
metrics of YouTube videos that contain their intellectual property according to Content ID.
October 2009- Viacom presents "smoking gun" evidence for its case: internal
e-mails from YouTube staff that show "actual knowledge" that copyright infringement was taking
place on the video sharing site.
November 2009- Google announces YouTube Direct, a
system where media outlets can directly communicate with users and arrange rebroadcasting rights
on a one-to-one basis.
March 2010- Some of Viacom's "smoking gun" documents go public, company claims
"YouTube was intentionally built on infringement."
Through videos, we see and learn about the
cultural importance and economical boost that working with fabric is giving some people and
organizations in Mali. From a women's group which claim to have placed Mali as a power in the
cloth dying industry, to artists who have decided to make Bamako or mud dyed cloths their medium,
to the touristic industry that has grown around this art.
First, via Craft: we learned of
a recent fundraising activity Maureen Gosling organized to assist her in finishing her documentary about the women cloth dyers
of Bamako (Mali's capital city). In this video preview, the women dyers speak about the
importance their dyed cloth has in Mali and how working with it has impacted their lives:
Another traditional textile is the mudcloth. This next video from TravelWestAfrica shot in
Ségou, we see how they make the dyes which include the mud that gives the cloth its name:
Another name for the mudcloth is Bogolanfini; in this following video by hubuf made in 2006, a
trainer explains to a group of students what bogolan is, what it's made of and what it means for
Malian culture:
In this next video by claudiodumali we
can see a group of visitors learning by doing; with small scraps of cloth they experiment with
the different dyes and muds used in Bogolan making in Ségou:
If you wish to know more about Bogolan, polbenmali has uploaded a 2 part documentary
(part 1, part 2 [fr]) on Issiaka Dembele, an artist who
turned to Bogolan as his medium. In the videos, Dembele speaks in French about his trade, but the
images show clearly the intricate and time consuming process of dying the fabric yellow, covering
it in pond mud left to rot for months which will turn the fabric black, and then going over the
yellow areas to remove the dye in certain parts, painting over other colors in others:
Yesterday, David Chen live-tweeted the process of becoming an American citizen when he, along with 900 other individuals, participated
in the Naturalization Oath Ceremony at the Lowell Memorial Auditorium in Lowell, Massachusetts.
Chen, the managing editor of /Film, is used to
using his Twitter account to live-tweet
film festivals or events like Comic Con, but this was something different.
“I didn’t anticipate being able to live-tweet the ceremony, because I had heard a
rumor that they would confiscate my electronic devices. This ended up not being true, so after I
checked in, I realized I had an opportunity to show people an aspect of citizenship that they
might not usually be privy to. And I took it.”
In addition to sending out tweets about the ceremony, Chen also uploaded
videos to YouTube, photos to Flickr and even took the time to do an audio interview with another new
citizen.
After the ceremony, Chen wrote about the experience on his blog, sharing what it means to be an American to
him. Born in Taiwan, Chen’s family came to America when he was two years old. Now more than
20 years later, he’s officially a U.S. citizen.
We’ve seen examples of people using social media to share love, report on breaking
news and even on the birth of a child. It only makes sense that we now have one of the first
instances of someone live-tweeting the naturalization process.
The mobile nature of something like Twitter — Chen was able to send out updates as he
waited in line for his certificate, prepared to say the oath, etc. — makes it the perfect
medium to capture some of these life events.
Congrats Dave! How do you use social media to share your stories with the world? Let us know!
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly
complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to
upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them
look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent
employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to
Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely
left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high
up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very
strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report should remain on YouTube.
Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its
own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a
result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to
YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the
very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
JVC vient d’ajouter à sa gamme de projecteur 4K D-ILA, le DLA-SH7NLG. Comme les
précédents modèles 4K (DLA-SH4K), ce nouveau projecteur sera capable
d’offrir une résolution 4 fois supérieure à de la Full HD, soit
environ du 4096 x 2400.
Pour les autres caractéristiques, JVC nous propose un rapport de contraste de 10 000 :1,
une luminosité de 5000 ANSI Lumens, et la possibilité d’afficher deux ou
quatre écrans en WUXGA (1920 x 1200) grâce à ses quatre entrées DVI
(Dual Link). Il existe également trois autres types d’objectifs proposés
comprenant un Short Focus, et un télescopique.
Disponible aux US aux alentours de 150 000$.
Communiqué de Presse
JVC Professional Products, division of JVC U.S.A., today announced the new, 10 MegaPixel
DLA-SH7NLG, a 4K D-ILA projector incorporating three 1.27-inch 4K2K D-ILA display devices for
high-quality imaging and dual ultra-high-pressure mercury lamps for 5,000 ANSI lumens of
brightness. Combining superb definition and resolution with low-cost maintenance, the 4K2K D-ILA
projector is available now and is ideal for planetariums, museums, simulators, and medical
institutions, as well as high-spec design and monitoring facilities.
The new model joins the DLA-SH4K, which debuted in January 2008 as a 4K D-ILA projector and
quickly drew high praise. Like its predecessor, the DLA-SH7NLG achieves ultra-high resolution of
approximately 10 megapixels (4,096 x 2,400), which is five times the resolution of full HD, plus
the projector has a stunning 10,000:1 native contrast ratio.
Notable features of the new DLA-SH7NLG include:
1. With approximately 10 megapixels of resolution, JVC’s 4K2K D-ILA devices can
simultaneously display two or four screens in WUXGA (1,920 x 1,200) resolution. Multi-screen
projection is facilitated by four DVI (Dual-Link) input terminals supporting an array of PC input
formats. The DLA-SH7NLG also offers a low latency mode for simulation environments.
2. True black quality with stunning 10,000:1 native contrast thanks to a wire-grid optical
engine.
3. Dual 330W ultra-high-pressure mercury lamps, producing 5,000 lumens of brightness. In
single lamp mode, the DLA-SH7NLG can automatically choose the lamp with less cumulative operating
time for maintenance efficiency. This, plus the addition of a low-power mode, enable lamp life of
approximately 3,000 hours, which is about double that of conventional projectors. Such features
allow the DLA-SH7NLG to offer low running costs even under heavy professional use.
4. Elaborate design offers operational flexibility, including stacking two projectors to
display 3D images or installation on a +/- 90-degree tilt. The DLA-SH7NLG only weighs about 110
pounds, excluding lens.
5. Three different lenses, including short-focus and telescopic models, are available for
various projection environments.
The DLA-SH7NLG operates on normal AC 100-220V power and consumes less than 1.1 kW.
Convergence can be adjusted to 1/10 pixel accuracy via GUI control, and three gamma tables are
included. Six test patterns, including a crosshatch and color bars, enable image adjustment
without external signal sources.
Projection configuration data is easily stored and uploaded from a USB memory device. The
Ethernet-compatible DLA-SH7NLG can be configured via a PC Web browser, and multiple projectors
are networkable for operation via a single PC. Plus, for improved maintenance, e-mails can be
generated automatically to send lamp replacement reminders and error status notifications.
The DLA-SH7NLG has an MSRP of under $150,000 plus lens and is available immediately.
JVC extended its D-ILA Lineup of 4K projectors with the latest DLA-SH7NLG. Just like its 4K
predecessor (DLA-SH4K), it is capable of four times the resolution of full HD as of approximately
10 Mpixel (4,096 x 2,400). As to the distinguishing specs, they above all include 10,000:1 native
contrast ratio, 5,000 ANSI lumens of brightness and the capability of simultaneously displaying
two or four screens in WUXGA (1,920 x 1,200) resolution thanks to its four DVI (Dual-link) input
terminals. There are also three different types of lens offered, including short-focus and
telescopic.
JVC USA announces the price as MSRP of under $150,000.
Press Release
JVC Professional Products, division of JVC U.S.A., today announced the new, 10 MegaPixel
DLA-SH7NLG, a 4K D-ILA projector incorporating three 1.27-inch 4K2K D-ILA display devices for
high-quality imaging and dual ultra-high-pressure mercury lamps for 5,000 ANSI lumens of
brightness. Combining superb definition and resolution with low-cost maintenance, the 4K2K D-ILA
projector is available now and is ideal for planetariums, museums, simulators, and medical
institutions, as well as high-spec design and monitoring facilities.
The new model joins the DLA-SH4K, which debuted in January 2008 as a 4K D-ILA projector and
quickly drew high praise. Like its predecessor, the DLA-SH7NLG achieves ultra-high resolution of
approximately 10 megapixels (4,096 x 2,400), which is five times the resolution of full HD, plus
the projector has a stunning 10,000:1 native contrast ratio.
Notable features of the new DLA-SH7NLG include:
1. With approximately 10 megapixels of resolution, JVC’s 4K2K D-ILA devices can
simultaneously display two or four screens in WUXGA (1,920 x 1,200) resolution. Multi-screen
projection is facilitated by four DVI (Dual-Link) input terminals supporting an array of PC input
formats. The DLA-SH7NLG also offers a low latency mode for simulation environments.
2. True black quality with stunning 10,000:1 native contrast thanks to a wire-grid optical
engine.
3. Dual 330W ultra-high-pressure mercury lamps, producing 5,000 lumens of brightness. In
single lamp mode, the DLA-SH7NLG can automatically choose the lamp with less cumulative operating
time for maintenance efficiency. This, plus the addition of a low-power mode, enable lamp life of
approximately 3,000 hours, which is about double that of conventional projectors. Such features
allow the DLA-SH7NLG to offer low running costs even under heavy professional use.
4. Elaborate design offers operational flexibility, including stacking two projectors to
display 3D images or installation on a +/- 90-degree tilt. The DLA-SH7NLG only weighs about 110
pounds, excluding lens.
5. Three different lenses, including short-focus and telescopic models, are available for
various projection environments.
The DLA-SH7NLG operates on normal AC 100-220V power and consumes less than 1.1 kW.
Convergence can be adjusted to 1/10 pixel accuracy via GUI control, and three gamma tables are
included. Six test patterns, including a crosshatch and color bars, enable image adjustment
without external signal sources.
Projection configuration data is easily stored and uploaded from a USB memory device. The
Ethernet-compatible DLA-SH7NLG can be configured via a PC Web browser, and multiple projectors
are networkable for operation via a single PC. Plus, for improved maintenance, e-mails can be
generated automatically to send lamp replacement reminders and error status notifications.
The DLA-SH7NLG has an MSRP of under $150,000 plus lens and is available immediately.
With the release of court filings in the three-year old copyright infringement suit between
Viacom and YouTube, we’ve seen the video share site argue that it is
not liable for infringing videos uploaded to its site, as it claims protection under the safe
harbor provision of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
But in Viacom’s filing for a partial summary judgment, it makes the case that the
site’s founders — and later executives of acquirer Google — turned a blind eye
to copyrighted material in an effort to drastically grow the site’s user base. And since
YouTube’s founders were aware of infringement and chose to do nothing about it, Viacom
argues that the company is liable under the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision,
which found that a site operating with the intent of infringing should not be protected by the
DMCA.
Using internal emails that were passed between YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and
Jawed Karim, Viacom paints the picture of YouTube as a young company whose leaders were willing
to grow its user base at any cost. For instance, the filing states that Chen urged his associates
in one email to “concentrate all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively
as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.” The comment notably contrasts with
future purchaser Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra — but more
importantly, that attitude set the stage for a number of decisions that the YouTube founders made
to grow at the expense of rights holders that it was infringing on.
YouTube didn’t always ignore the sensitive copyright issue. At one point during the summer
of 2005, for instance, the site’s founders removed “some of the most obvious
infringing video from YouTube to give the impression of copyright compliance,” the
Viacom filing claims. However, they also chose to leave a good deal of infringing content up,
believing that enabling users to search for less high-profile content was worth the risk.
According to the filing, Chen wrote in an email, “That way, the perception is that we are
concerned about this type of material and we’re actively monitoring it. [But the] actual
removal of this content will be in varying degrees. That way . . . you can find truckloads of . .
. copyrighted content . . . [if] you [are] actively searching for it.”
And at one point, YouTube founder Jawed Karim even uploaded infringing content to the site
himself, which drew some criticism from Chen. In an email, Chen acknowledged, “We’re
going to have a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the copyrighted
material on the site because we didn’t put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly
stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.”
But for the most part, Viacom argues that the founders mainly did nothing about the copyright
issue, even though internally they knew it was driving a large portion of their traffic. In an
email exchange between the founders, Chen estimated that 80 percent of the site’s traffic
was driven by pirated videos, and opposed taking them down proactively because, “if you
remove the potential copyright infringements . . . site traffic and virality will drop to maybe
20% of what it is.”
While Viacom tries to make the case that YouTube’s founders knew the extent of the
infringement taking place and chose to do nothing about it, it argues that Google was also well
aware of the site’s infringement issues at purchase. As part of Google’s due
diligence into YouTube, financial advisor Credit Suisse analyzed the site’s content and
estimated that more than 60 percent of video views appeared on premium content, but YouTube only
had a license for about 10 percent of those videos, according to Viacom.
Furthermore, Viacom claims that Google not only acquired YouTube despite those problems, but it
chose initially to take the same approach as YouTube’s founders by ignoring copyright
issues. Rather than screen videos prior to putting them on the site, as Google had done with its
own video site, Google Video, it allowed YouTube to continue operating without any pre-emptive
enforcement policies in place.
All this, Viacom argues, suggests that YouTube and Google should not be protected by the DMCA.
Like Grokster, the company argues, “Google and YouTube were not just innocent and unwitting
accomplices to infringement perpetrated by YouTube users. Defendants operated YouTube with the
unlawful objective of using infringing material to explosively build their user base and become
the dominant video website on the Internet.”
In a scorching post on the company's blog, YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine accuses Viacom of
going to great lengths to secretly upload videos to YouTube in order to take advantage of its
promotional value even as they were suing YouTube, arguing that YouTube should be able to tell the
difference between Viacom videos that were uploaded by actual infringers as opposed to Viacom
employees and agents being paid to pretend to be infringers. For years, Viacom continuously and
secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It
deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts
using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that
couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company
policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary
users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt
"very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on
YouTube. Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its
own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a
result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to
YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very
clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself. Given Viacom's own
actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not
authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The
legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and every Web platform -- to investigate and
police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they
get it wrong. Broadcast Yourself (via /.) (Image: Kara Swisher and Philippe Dauman, a Creative
Commons Attribution photo from Joi's photostream) Previously:YouTube user data must be turned over
to Viacom, judge rules ... Ontario Privacy Commissioner to Google: Fight the Viacom/YouTube ...
Viacom terrorizes YouTube with bullshit DMCA notices EFF sues Viacom over YouTube takedown of
Colbert parody Viacom: privacy-hating hypocrites YouTube/Google sued by Viacom for a billion bucks
Infringing Viacom claims copyright infringement...
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Documents in
Viacom's 3-year-old, $1 billion suit against YouTube, unsealed on Thursday by U.S. District Court
Judge Louis Stanton, paint a fascinating picture of the intertwined relationship between the video
site and the conglomerate that owns MTV, BET and Comedy Central.
With the release of court filings in the three-year old copyright infringement suit between
Viacom and YouTube, we’ve seen the video share site argue that it is
not liable for infringing videos uploaded to its site, as it claims protection under the safe
harbor provision of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
But in Viacom’s filing for a partial summary judgment, it makes the case that the
site’s founders — and later executives of acquirer Google — turned a blind eye
to copyrighted material in an effort to drastically grow the site’s user base. And since
YouTube’s founders were aware of infringement and chose to do nothing about it, Viacom
argues that the company is liable under the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision,
which found that a site operating with the intent of infringing should not be protected by the
DMCA.
Using internal emails that were passed between YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and
Jawed Karim, Viacom paints the picture of YouTube as a young company whose leaders were willing
to grow its user base at any cost. For instance, the filing states that Chen urged his associates
in one email to “concentrate all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively
as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.” The comment notably contrasts with
future purchaser Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra — but more
importantly, that attitude set the stage for a number of decisions that the YouTube founders made
to grow at the expense of rights holders that it was infringing on.
YouTube didn’t always ignore the sensitive copyright issue. At one point during the summer
of 2005, for instance, the site’s founders removed “some of the most obvious
infringing video from YouTube to give the impression of copyright compliance,” the
Viacom filing claims. However, they also chose to leave a good deal of infringing content up,
believing that enabling users to search for less high-profile content was worth the risk.
According to the filing, Chen wrote in an email, “That way, the perception is that we are
concerned about this type of material and we’re actively monitoring it. [But the] actual
removal of this content will be in varying degrees. That way . . . you can find truckloads of . .
. copyrighted content . . . [if] you [are] actively searching for it.”
And at one point, YouTube founder Jawed Karim even uploaded infringing content to the site
himself, which drew some criticism from Chen. In an email, Chen acknowledged, “We’re
going to have a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the copyrighted
material on the site because we didn’t put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly
stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.”
But for the most part, Viacom argues that the founders mainly did nothing about the copyright
issue, even though internally they knew it was driving a large portion of their traffic. In an
email exchange between the founders, Chen estimated that 80 percent of the site’s traffic
was driven by pirated videos, and opposed taking them down proactively because, “if you
remove the potential copyright infringements . . . site traffic and virality will drop to maybe
20% of what it is.”
While Viacom tries to make the case that YouTube’s founders knew the extent of the
infringement taking place and chose to do nothing about it, it argues that Google was also well
aware of the site’s infringement issues at purchase. As part of Google’s due
diligence into YouTube, financial advisor Credit Suisse analyzed the site’s content and
estimated that more than 60 percent of video views appeared on premium content, but YouTube only
had a license for about 10 percent of those videos, according to Viacom.
Furthermore, Viacom claims that Google not only acquired YouTube despite those problems, but it
chose initially to take the same approach as YouTube’s founders by ignoring copyright
issues. Rather than screen videos prior to putting them on the site, as Google had done with its
own video site, Google Video, it allowed YouTube to continue operating without any pre-emptive
enforcement policies in place.
All this, Viacom argues, suggests that YouTube and Google should not be protected by the DMCA.
Like Grokster, the company argues, “Google and YouTube were not just innocent and unwitting
accomplices to infringement perpetrated by YouTube users. Defendants operated YouTube with the
unlawful objective of using infringing material to explosively build their user base and become
the dominant video website on the Internet.”
I've spent the last few hours going through the motions for summary judgment from both Google and
Viacom in the YouTube case. If you'd like to kill a few hours yourself:
There are few surprises made in the basic arguments by both parties. Viacom claims that
YouTube knew about infringing content and should have taken it down (and that Google knew about
this and then continued with that policy). Google claims that it's clearly protected by the DMCA's
safe harbors. There are some interesting things raised in the filings however:
Viacom claims that YouTube employees uploaded infringing content themselves, and discussed
this over email -- though, the filings carefully provide only fragments of the emails, which
could easily have been taken out of context. And, even on top of that nowhere does Viacom explain
how YouTube employees could distinguish which content was actually infringing and which was put
up for promotional purposes or what was fair use. This is a major weakness in Viacom's motion.
Viacom's secondary arguments get weaker as you go down the list. It argues that because
YouTube uses advertising to make money, that shows the company directly profits from
infringement. That argument makes no sense -- because it would effectively wipe out any safe
harbors for any commercial operation, which clearly was not the intent of Congress. Based on
this argument, any ISP that hosts content from a paying customer loses its safe harbors. That's
ridiculous on its face.
Viacom argues that Google could have blocked uploads with fingerprinting technology it had
licensed, but fails to note the massive weaknesses in those fingerprinting technologies (which we
still see thanks to Google's bad automated takedowns). It tries to bolster this argument by
saying that Google refused to use the fingerprinting on Viacom content unless Viacom
agreed to license its content to YouTube. Perhaps there's more to it than this, but I think
that's also taking Google statements out of context. The way the fingerprinting works is that
Google would need copies of the content to be able to recognize them -- and the only way to do
that is if Viacom licensed works to them.
Then the arguments get really weak. Viacom says that Google isn't just a secondary infringer,
but a direct infringer, due to the terms of service that say you're granting a license to
YouTube, and because to work, YouTube converts uploaded video to Flash. This is a weird legal
argument that has been rejected before.
The crux of Viacom's argument rests on trying to break the DMCA safe harbors because Google
and YouTube execs knew that there was a lot of infringing content on the site. But Viacom's
argument breaks down entirely when you realize it doesn't explain how Google could ever make the
actual determination of which videos are infringing. Viacom tries to get around this with some
legal tap dancing, basically saying that it doesn't matter and Google just should have known what
was infringing and what was not. But that makes no sense. Viacom is basically saying Google
should have had a magic wand to figure out what's infringing and make it disappear. That's
impossible. No law could possibly require Google to do the impossible. The fact that some of the
videos Viacom sued over were uploaded by Viacom itself proves this point clearly.
Viacom argues that because YouTube "licensed" its videos to Apple and Verizon Wireless
phones, it shows that it's more than just a passive service provider. Again, this seems like a
weak overall argument, as what YouTube was doing was licensing access to the videos in a more
convenient format, not claiming control over the videos themselves.
Viacom's lawyers also have a bit of fun at the fact that some old emails relevant to the case
were deleted, even though it's not that ridiculous that not everyone keeps all their emails. The
motion also mocks Google and YouTube execs for developing "serial amnesia" when presented with
"evidence." But, again, Viacom was asking people to remember specific sentence fragments
(potentially taken out of context) from years-old emails.
The "big surprise" in the Google motion is that Viacom apparently tried to buy YouTube
itself. While interesting as a historical nugget, I'm not really sure that really helps the case
one way or the other. It doesn't change how Viacom may have viewed YouTube as a platform. The
attempted purchase may just have been a way to try to co-opt it into a limited platform, like
what happened with Napster.
Google argues that it has gone above and beyond the DMCA's requirements in providing tools to
help copyright holders. Viacom's counter argument, of course, is that those changes are more
recent.
For every claim made by Viacom that Google/YouTube execs made damning statements, it looks
like Viacom's statements were even worse. For example: During these negotiations [to license
content] Viacom deliberately allowed its content to remain on YouTube, in part because it thought
that "having the content there was valuable in terms of helping the rating of our shows."
Google effectively makes the case that Viacom knew the benefits of having its clips on YouTube,
tried to negotiate with YouTube for a deal, and when Google came into the picture, basically
Viacom just saw it as an easy money grab and massively upped its demands before suing. Google
argues that the mass takedown and subsequent lawsuit was really just a negotiating ploy by Viacom
to get an upper hand in the negotiations to squeeze more money out of Google.
Amusingly, Viacom notes repeatedly in its own filings that YouTube didn't want to take down
its videos because traffic to YouTube would suffer -- but Google counters by pointing out that it
did take down all of Viacom's 100,000 takedown requests within hours and
traffic to the site did not suffer and, despite Viacom's expectations to the
contrary, traffic to Viacom's own sites did not soar. In other words, despite Viacom's
over-inflated sense of how important Viacom's videos were to YouTube, the actual evidence
suggests that Viacom was very, very wrong.
Viacom tries to brush off the fact that it uploaded many videos itself, by saying (in a
footnote) that most of those videos were clearly designated as being from Viacom. Google counters
by pointing out that (a) this is not true and (b) Viacom repeatedly disguised who uploaded those
videos on purpose -- even quoting Paramount's SVP of marketing saying that the clips "should
definitely not be associated with the studio -- should appear as if a fan created and posted it."
Among the users who uploaded Viacom clips on behalf of Viacom itself? MMysticalGirl8,
Demansr, tesderiw, GossipGirl40, Snackboard and Keithhn On top of that, they registered with
non Viacom email addresses, and even went to the local Kinkos to avoid uploading from Viacom
directly. How Google was supposed to distinguish those clips from those uploaded by random users
is not explained anywhere by Viacom, which is a hugely damning point against Viacom's case.
Further damning to Viacom's case -- the fact that Viacom regularly had to backdown on its
takedown notices after it was realized that the takedowns were incorrect. This is a point that
we've made before and is driven home repeatedly in Google's filing. If Viacom itself can't get it
right -- when it holds the copyrights and some of the videos were uploaded by itself -- how the
hell is Google supposed to know which videos are legit and which are not?
Even more amusing is the part that details how Viacom had incredibly complex and detailed
rules with BayTSP (who monitored YouTube and sent the takedowns) over what should be taken down
and what should be left up. Apparently, those rules changed every few days and the folks
at BayTSP compared them to Crime and Punishment. Again, if Viacom required such a
complex list of rules for its own partner, how could it expect Google to know what to do without
knowing any of that information?
Google also points out that many of the clips in question have serious questions over whether
or not they could be considered fair use -- and those are questions for a court to determine. It
is both unfair and outside the scope of the law to expect a third party like Google to be able to
make that kind of decision on the fly.
In the end, it will surprise no one that I find Google's arguments significantly more
compelling than Viacom's. The one point on which Viacom is strongest is the emails from the very
early days of YouTube, where the founders and some employees admit that they know there's a fair
amount of infringement on the site, and they debate what to do about it, before taking a fairly
liberal approach -- though, never an approach that removes their safe harbors (Viacom disagrees on
that point). In fact, the weaknesses of Viacom's argument are driven home in that nowhere was it
able to produce a single bit of evidence of YouTube founders/execs being aware of a
specific infringing video. All of the quotes are about general infringement. The lack of a
smoking gun email to the contrary really weakens Viacom's case -- and is a glaring absence in the
motion.
What this comes down to in the end is a basic interpretation of what the DMCA really says and means
with its safe harbor provisions. Viacom's interpretation would effectively gut the entire purpose
of the safe harbor provisions, disqualifying pretty much any commercial entity that allows user
created content from gaining safe harbor protections. Such a reading makes no sense as it would
make the DMCA safe harbors effectively meaningless.
Google's motion, on the other hand, is quite compelling and highlights how even if execs are aware
of general infringement across the site, it was impossible for them to distinguish what was
authorized and what was not, as well as what was fair use and what was not. To require a third
party like Google to make such determinations would effectively gut the ability of pretty much any
user-generated content site to exist -- which, again, would clearly go against Congress'
intentions.
Still, with these sorts of lawsuits, you really never know how things will play out -- and judges
often get blinded by "infringement bad, must punish!" type arguments. Hopefully, in this case,
reason prevails.
The Viacom-YouTube copyright battle heated up Thursday. Viacom told a federal judge that
Google-owned YouTube turns a blind eye to wanton copyright infringement on the video-sharing site.
Google says Viacom uploaded many of the videos that are subject of its suit.
In response to opening briefs filed by Viacom today in its now three-year-old lawsuit
against YouTube, the video-sharing site
has posted some startling accusations about the hypocrisy of the media giant’s claims.
In a blog post, YouTube claims that at the same time Viacom was trying to sue YouTube
into oblivion, it was secretly having its own content uploaded to the site. YouTube says that
Viacom hired “no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies” who “deliberately
‘roughed up’ the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.”
Then, YouTube claims, Viacom would demand the takedown of content, but because of the mess that
it created, “there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was
not authorized to be on the site.” YouTube also says that Viacom tried to acquire the
company on numerous occasions (of course, Google ultimately won that battle).
Beyond those arguments, though, YouTube’s main legal defense is simply that it is protected
by the DMCA, which puts the onus on copyright holders, not service providers, to keep track of
and help enforce copyrights. Because of Viacom’s actions, however, YouTube says that
thorough enforcement was impossible.
Viacom, however, contests that YouTube didn’t do enough to protect copyright content and
built its huge following thanks in no small part to unauthorized content. It makes its most
convincing case with a series of e-mails between the co-founders of YouTube, who at time seems more
concerned with a big pay day than dealing with copyright issues.
YouTube certainly makes a compelling case, and considering the plethora of media companies that
have moved on and now do content deals with YouTube, it’s hard to imagine Viacom finding
much support, at least in the court of public opinion. Nonetheless, the case moves forward, and
Viacom will ultimately have the chance to show that YouTube knowingly let copyright content stay
on its site.
A trove of documents were unsealed in the long-running $1 billion copyright infringement suit Viacom (NYSE: VIA) filed against YouTube. We’re sorting through them now. In the
meantime, here are some highlights:
—Google (NSDQ: GOOG) contends that Viacom in fact “overtly and
covertly” uploaded to YouTube “thousands” of the company’s own clips in
order to market them, using its own employees and as well as an “army of third-party
marketing agents” to do so. In order not to be linked back to Viacom, the
“agents” used names like ‘MysticalGirl8,’ ‘Demansr,’
‘GossipGirl40’ and ‘Snackboard,’ while Viacom employees went to
non-company locations—like Kinko’s—to upload the clips. Google says that
“Viacom’s efforts to hide the source of the content it cause to be posted on YouTube
were too good” and in fact some of the clips Viacom is suing YouTube for hosting were
uploaded by the company.
—Viacom also decided not take down “thousands upon thousands” of clips from the
site, Google says. For instance, when at one point Viacom found 316 clips from South Park on the
site, it decided to take down only one and “pass” on the others.
A trove of documents were unsealed in the long-running $1 billion copyright infringement suit Viacom (NYSE: VIA) filed against YouTube. We’re sorting through them now. In the
meantime, here are some highlights:
—Google (NSDQ: GOOG) contends that Viacom in fact “overtly and
covertly” uploaded to YouTube “thousands” of the company’s own clips in
order to market them, using its own employees and as well as an “army of third-party
marketing agents” to do so. In order not to be linked back to Viacom, the
“agents” used names like ‘MysticalGirl8,’ ‘Demansr,’
‘GossipGirl40’ and ‘Snackboard,’ while Viacom employees went to
non-company locations—like Kinko’s—to upload the clips. Google says that
“Viacom’s efforts to hide the source of the content it cause to be posted on YouTube
were too good” and in fact some of the clips Viacom is suing YouTube for hosting were
uploaded by the company.
—Viacom also decided not take down “thousands upon thousands” of clips from the
site, Google says. For instance, when at one point Viacom found 316 clips from South Park on the
site, it decided to take down only one and “pass” on the others.
Court filings in the three-year old copyright
infringement suit between Viacom and YouTube have finally been made public, which should make
some interesting reading and take over the rest of my afternoon. But in the meantime, YouTube
Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine has written a pretty damning post on
the YouTube blog, condemning Viacom for having its employees pose as normal users to upload
promotional content to the video-sharing site.
Asking for a summary judgment in the case, YouTube argues that it should be protected by safe
harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which state that Internet hosts
should not be found liable for content that is uploaded to their sites, so long as they respond
to takedown notices issued by copyright owners within a reasonable period of time. In the blog
post, Levine writes that the DMCA “recognizes that content owners, not service providers
like YouTube, are in the best position to know whether a specific video is authorized to be on an
Internet hosting service.”
Viacom might believe otherwise, arguing that YouTube should have done a better job of keeping
copyrighted material off the site. But Levine argues that even if YouTube were tasked with doing
so, Viacom’s actions would have made policing its content impossible. YouTube accuses
Viacom of
uploading its own content, and doing so in a way that made it difficult for YouTube to
distinguish between its employees and common users. If true, the accusation is pretty damning.
Levine writes:
“Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly
complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to
upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them
look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent
employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom.
And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up
clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users.
The results were so effective, Levin writes, that Viacom couldn’t tell if a piece of
content was uploaded by its employees or not, which resulted in Viacom demanding that some clips
be taken down — and then later asking for them to be reinstated. “Given
Viacom’s own actions,” Levine writes, “there is no way YouTube could ever have
known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site.”
Established in 1998, Agava is one of Russia’s top 5 web hosting companies employing around
300 people. Last night, police investigators arrived at a datacenter where Agava has some of its
operations.
The investigators had a self-awarded warrant which allowed them to conduct a search in order to
retrieve evidence located on servers used by Agava client iFolder.ru, a large file-hosting
service and Russia’s 51st most-visited site
The police had been working on an investigation into an individual who used iFolder to upload
child pornography a while ago. The person was caught by the police, but investigators wanted to
search to see if he had uploaded more
material.
Agava employees offered their full co-operation in assisting them to find the data in question.
However, the police turned down the offer and insisted they were going to seize all of
Agava’s servers, more than 100 in total, and waited for several hours for a vehicle to come
and collect them.
In the end the mass seizure did not take place but police did cut the power and seal them all
off. Some of those affected are Agava’s primary DNS servers, but fortunately their
secondary units were unaffected.
“Agava considers this unprecedented event as putting in jeopardy and dimming the future of
every business in RuNet,” said the company in an announcement. “We are determined to
challenge and overcome the excessive and destructive actions we encountered, to protect our
customer’s interests. We thank our clients in advance for their patience, and for media and
other support they provide us with.”
Even though the police have stated they have no problem with iFolder continuing its operations,
the investigation has rendered the site completely non-operational. On a normal day, 180,000
people upload or download from the service resulting in 1.5 million pageviews. Total users per
month is around 4.3m.
This action against iFolder follows the unilateral
decision to seize the domain name of Russia’s biggest torrent site, Torrents.ru.
I will be participating in the Barcamp Quito 2010 as a
videodesconferencista (a desconstructive lecturer? – I even have a
page!!??) through my webcam this weekend.
Ubuntu Global Jam in Oslo - Humla @ Hausmania
Then the Norwegian LoCo team in cooperation with Linuxbrigaden and Oslo Linux User Group will be
holding the first Ubuntu Global Jam
in Oslo!
The idea is also to finish the planning for the Ubuntu Lucid Lynx 10.04 Oslo Release Party under
the Jam. See our planning page here.
Among other we have confirmed HÃ¥kon Wium Lie as a
speech holder (yes, he is an Ubuntu user. Besides hes is one of the masterminds of the Web
working in the CSS standard
since before its standardization as being the CTO of Opera
Software.)
YouTube yesterday touted the fact that it now processes
about 24 hours worth of video content each minute — a milestone for the site. But while
that number is impressive, there are a few others that say they can beat it. Without having the
advantage of being owned and operated by Google, live streaming startups Ustream, Livestream and
Justin.tv all claim to encode more video per minute than the
largest video site on the web.
In an email to NewTeeVee, Livestream CEO Max Haot said that his company ingests an average of
1,600 concurrent streams each day. That 1,600 minutes of recorded or uploaded video translates
into about 26.6 hours of video being processed every minute. Justin.tv also bests YouTube, with
users reportedly uploading about 30 hours of live video content per minute, according to a
recent
article in High Scalability.
But Ustream might have them all beat. The site claims some 120 million live video streams
uploaded each month. But according to a spokesperson, the site had an average of 3,200 concurrent
streams at any given time, equal to about 53.5 hours of video that is encoded and processed every
minute. Ustream attributes that increase to a high amount of live streaming that its users have
been uploading through the iPhone ever since the company’s Broadcaster app was approved by
Apple.
Despite the large amount of video that needs to be processed, the live streaming startups have,
for the most part, decided to take such processing in-house rather than go with a third-party for
encoding. Justin.tv and Livestream both started on Amazon Web Services, but transitioned to their
own infrastructure to encode and stream user videos. In an email to NewTeeVee, Haot said that his
company moved to its own infrastructure due to a lack of guaranteed bandwidth and the cost of
cloud computing. In the High Scalability article, Justin.tv’s founder and VP of engineering
also cited cost and lack of performance guarantees as reasons for moving out of the cloud.
A new torrent has been uploaded to U2Torrents.com.
Torrent: 5758
Title: German TV Spots Vol 1
Size: 4.16 GB
Category: Interviews/Misc
Uploaded by: Daywalker
Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first DVD from 6.
"German TV Spots Vol 1-6"
this was filling a request for Markus :-) *wink* and for all the other Members here
Setlist:
Setlist:
1.) VIVA 2, U2-DAY ON VIVA 2, 02.11.2000, 2 ROCK
SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY (DENVER, RED ROCKS)
I WILL FOLLOW (DENVER, RED ROCKS)
HAWKMOON 269 (CHARITY CONCERT SYDNEY 1989)
GOD PART II (CHARITY CONCERT SYDNEY 1989)
ALL I WANT IS YOU (CHARITY CONCERT SYDNEY 1989)
WHEN LOVES COMES TO TOWN (CHARITY CONCERT SYDNEY 1989)
PRIDE (RATTLE & HUM)
UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD (ZOOTV-TOUR)
PLEASE (POPMART-TOUR)
WHERE THE STREETS HAVE NO NAME (JOSHUA TREE)
ELEVATION (LIVE AT CLARENCE)
BEAUTIFUL DAY (LIVE AT CLARENCE)
2.) FAST FORWARD, VIVA 2, 02.11.2000, CHARLOTTE TRIFFT U2 IN DUBLIN
INTERVIEW BONO & LARRY
BEAUTIFUL DAY
INTERVIEW BONO & LARRY
NEW YEARS DAY
THE UNFORGETTABLE FIRE
INTERVIEW EDGE & ADAM
WITH OR WITHOUT YOU
INTERVIEW EDGE & ADAM
PLEASE
i hope the Mods allowed the upload here
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can use the URL below to download the torrent (you may have to login).
Live U2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Please do not reply to this email account it is NOT monitored.
Please visit the U2torrents.com Help section at http://www.u2torrents.com/help/ for helpful
information or to Ask a Question.
A new torrent has been uploaded to U2Torrents.com.
Torrent: 5757
Title: 1997-06-08 Philadelphia (Unknown Lineage) -- By Request --
Size: 686.44 MB
Category: Popmart
Uploaded by: drewwerd
Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just filling another request. I couldn't find any info on this recording any where, it does
appear to be lossless, so enjoy!
June 08, 1997 / Philadelphia, PA
Venue: Franklin Field
Mofo
I Will Follow
Even Better Than The Real Thing
Gone
Pride
I Still Haven't Found-Stand By Me
Last Night On Earth
Until The End Of The World
If God Will Send His Angels
Staring At The Sun
Daydream Believer
Miami
Bullet the Blue Sky-America
Please
Where the Streets Have No Name
Discotheque
If You Wear That Velvet Dress
With or Without You
Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
Mysterious Ways
One-Hallelujah
Live U2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Please do not reply to this email account it is NOT monitored.
Please visit the U2torrents.com Help section at http://www.u2torrents.com/help/ for helpful
information or to Ask a Question.
A new torrent has been uploaded to U2Torrents.com.
Torrent: 5756
Title: 1993-05-29 Werchter Festivalterrein - Sony TCD D7 - OKM II Rock - taper: Stadtfelder
Size: 681.74 MB
Category: ZooTv
Uploaded by: Stadtfelder
Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U2
Werchter, Belgium, Festivalterrein
May, 29, 1993
Source: Sony TCD D7 @ 32 khz > OKM II Rock microphones > Terratec EWX 2496 > digital
transfer with optical cable > Sound Forge 9.0 > CD Wave Editor > .wav > FLAC
This was my first recording with this Sony recorder (I got it a few days before the concert and
had no chance to check it out). For this reason
the volume level changed a few times on tracks 1 and 2.
Recorded outside of the "front of stage area". There is some annoying crowd noise on the
recording.
There are "speed problems" on tracks 4 and 5 (starting at 0:57 on track 4).
(126:53)
01. Intro (5:07)
02. Zoo Station (4:46)
03. The Fly (6:21)
04. Even Better Than The Real Thing (3:39)
05. Mysterious Ways/ Love To Love You Baby (snippet) (6:46)
06. One (4:40)
07. Unchained Melody (1:29)
08. Until The End Of The World (4:59)
09. New Year's Day (5:44)
10. Party Girl - Edge solo - (2:20)
11. Tryin' To Throw Your Arms Around The World/
There Is No Business Like Showbusiness (snippet) (5:06)
12. Angel Of Harlem (3:58)
13. When Love Comes To Town (2:47)
14. Satellite Of Love (3:42)
15. Bad/ Fool To Cry (snippet) (6:09)
16. All I Want Is You (0:33)
17. Bullet The Blue Sky (5:04)
18. Running To Stand Still (5:46)
19. Where The Streets Have No Name (5:28)
20. Pride (In The Name Of Love) (4:44)
21. encore break (4:44)
22. confession box (4:14)
23. Desire (4:43)
24. MacPhisto speech/ phone call (4:43)
25. Ultraviolet (Light My Way) (4:53)
26. With Or Without You (4:51)
27. Love Is Blindness (5:25)
28. Can't Help Falling In Love (2:05)
29. Outro (3:04)
The sound quality is quite good but the recording is sometimes marred by crowd noise and the
"speed problems" on tracks 4 and 5.
I compared this recording with zZimmy21's version which was uploaded on dime in March 2010. Both
recordings are good but I think there is even more
crowd noise on zimmy21's recording. A matrix of both versions can produce a nearly perfect
version. If you want to do a matrix then do!
Live U2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Please do not reply to this email account it is NOT monitored.
Please visit the U2torrents.com Help section at http://www.u2torrents.com/help/ for helpful
information or to Ask a Question.
A website that sorts everyday the most relevant information to you.
Vote for the news and Matoumba will learn your tastes and the information that you like the most.
It is all FREE!
Find here the history of the stories you found interesting.
Show this to people who share the same interests as you,
and if they use Matoumba, their own votes will fine recommandations to you.
Who says you
can’t attract a substantial number of users on a shoestring budget?
Yesterday, 
In response to opening briefs filed by Viacom today in its now three-year-old lawsuit
against 
Recommandations
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
