SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Plenty of folks, from copyright lawyers to Internet entrepreneurs to
investment bankers, have been watching the long-running legal battle
between Viacom and Google/YouTube carefully, well aware that a decision
in the case could have a profound effect on the future of the Internet.
But most YouTube users probably haven't given it the same attention.
They should, and in an amicus
brief filed in support of YouTube last week, a group of YouTube
video creators explains why.
Calling themselves "The Sideshow Coalition" (because Viacom has
called their interests a "sideshow"), these creators tell their own
personal stories of how YouTube has helped them find a broader audience
than they had ever imagined they could reach, with all kinds of
unexpected effects. A few examples from the brief:
These creators praise YouTube for removing the gatekeeper between
them and their audiences. "We can now be our own television and cable
stations and our own record labels and record stores. We suspect that
the threat that truly concerns Plaintiffs is not copyright infringement
but just competition."
Unlike most of the parties and amici who have filed in this case (including EFF),
these friends of the court don't focus on the legal doctrines at stake
in this case. Instead, they remind us why these legal issues matter,
i.e., what's really at stake in a case that tries to hold intermediaries
liable for what users post online:
It is pretty clear that on a scale of incentives to censor, the
billion dollars that Plaintiffs seek in this lawsuit rates pretty high.
If YouTube is made responsible for everything that we say, then
naturally YouTube will want to exercise control over what we say. No
online service would risk enabling the universe of users to speak in
their own words if it faced liability for anything that anyone said.Therefore, we ask that as the Court decides this case, it consider
not just the interests of those who appear in the caption, but also our
interests as creative professionals and the interests of the hundreds of
millions of people who have viewed our work.We are not a sideshow. We are what YouTube is all about and what
this lawsuit should be about.
Just so.
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Plenty of folks, from copyright lawyers to Internet entrepreneurs to
investment bankers, have been watching the long-running legal battle
between Viacom and Google/YouTube carefully, well aware that a decision
in the case could have a profound effect on the future of the Internet.
But most YouTube users probably haven't given it the same attention.
They should, and in an amicus
brief filed in support of YouTube last week, a group of YouTube
video creators explains why.
Calling themselves "The Sideshow Coalition" (because Viacom has
called their interests a "sideshow"), these creators tell their own
personal stories of how YouTube has helped them find a broader audience
than they had ever imagined they could reach, with all kinds of
unexpected effects. A few examples from the brief:
These creators praise YouTube for removing the gatekeeper between
them and their audiences. "We can now be our own television and cable
stations and our own record labels and record stores. We suspect that
the threat that truly concerns Plaintiffs is not copyright infringement
but just competition."
Unlike most of the parties and amici who have filed in this case (including EFF),
these friends of the court don't focus on the legal doctrines at stake
in this case. Instead, they remind us why these legal issues matter,
i.e., what's really at stake in a case that tries to hold intermediaries
liable for what users post online:
It is pretty clear that on a scale of incentives to censor, the
billion dollars that Plaintiffs seek in this lawsuit rates pretty high.
If YouTube is made responsible for everything that we say, then
naturally YouTube will want to exercise control over what we say. No
online service would risk enabling the universe of users to speak in
their own words if it faced liability for anything that anyone said.Therefore, we ask that as the Court decides this case, it consider
not just the interests of those who appear in the caption, but also our
interests as creative professionals and the interests of the hundreds of
millions of people who have viewed our work.We are not a sideshow. We are what YouTube is all about and what
this lawsuit should be about.
Just so.
Plenty of folks, from copyright lawyers to Internet entrepreneurs to
investment bankers, have been watching the long-running legal battle
between Viacom and Google/YouTube carefully, well aware that a decision
in the case could have a profound effect on the future of the Internet.
But most YouTube users probably haven't given it the same attention.
They should, and in an amicus
brief filed in support of YouTube last week, a group of YouTube
video creators explains why.
Calling themselves "The Sideshow Coalition" (because Viacom has
called their interests a "sideshow"), these creators tell their own
personal stories of how YouTube has helped them find a broader audience
than they had ever imagined they could reach, with all kinds of
unexpected effects. A few examples from the brief:
These creators praise YouTube for removing the gatekeeper between
them and their audiences. "We can now be our own television and cable
stations and our own record labels and record stores. We suspect that
the threat that truly concerns Plaintiffs is not copyright infringement
but just competition."
Unlike most of the parties and amici who have filed in this case (including EFF),
these friends of the court don't focus on the legal doctrines at stake
in this case. Instead, they remind us why these legal issues matter,
i.e., what's really at stake in a case that tries to hold intermediaries
liable for what users post online:
It is pretty clear that on a scale of incentives to censor, the
billion dollars that Plaintiffs seek in this lawsuit rates pretty high.
If YouTube is made responsible for everything that we say, then
naturally YouTube will want to exercise control over what we say. No
online service would risk enabling the universe of users to speak in
their own words if it faced liability for anything that anyone said.Therefore, we ask that as the Court decides this case, it consider
not just the interests of those who appear in the caption, but also our
interests as creative professionals and the interests of the hundreds of
millions of people who have viewed our work.We are not a sideshow. We are what YouTube is all about and what
this lawsuit should be about.
Just so.