A few weeks back we told you about a former dentist in Georgia who pled guilty in 2009 to filing Medicaid claims for procedures he didn’t actually perform, and who was trying to sue an anonymous YouTuber over a nearly seven-year-old news story that included allegations of physical assault from some patients. This week, the doctor agreed to withdraw his lawsuit and fork over $12,000 in fees for the unnamed defendant. [More]
Yesterday we told you about Dr. Gordon Austin, a former dentist who is suing to unmask an anonymous YouTube user for posting a 2009 news report about allegations against Austin. We’ve since had the chance to communicate with the YouTuber via email to understand why they posted the clip in the first place and why, nearly seven years later, they are still fighting to keep it online. [More]
A retired dentist in Georgia, who pleaded guilty in 2009 to filing Medicaid claims for procedures he didn’t actually perform, doesn’t want the world to see a nearly seven-year-old news report about allegations from patients that he physically assaulted them while in his office. [More]
The war of words between T-Mobile and YouTube continues, with executives from the wireless company claiming it’s “absurd” that the streaming service should care so much about T-Mo downgrading the quality of YouTube videos. [More]
Right before Christmas, YouTube publicly called out T-Mobile’s Binge On streaming program for allegedly slowing down all video content, potentially in violation of new federal “net neutrality” rules. Now T-Mobile counters YouTube’s argument by claiming that it’s just trying to provide users with speeds that are appropriate for use on mobile networks. [More]
Net neutrality says that internet providers can’t throttle some services and speed others up. That much is clear. But if they’re throttling literally everyone, even those who didn’t sign up for it, is it still a violation? Google says yes, and has a definite complaint about the way T-Mobile is starting to handle video.
After two months of testing a family plan for its streaming music service, Google announced that it would make the six-person program a permanent option for Google Play Music users. [More]
Do you remember 2007? Way back then in the long-long ago times, movies came on physical discs and you binge-watched a TV series by happening to turn on the TV while a Law and Order marathon was running. Now, however, it seems like basically everything streams to us over the internet… and basically the whole internet, or at least a huge fraction of it, is for streaming.
If you want to curl up on the sofa on a cold winter night and watch a movie, that’s what Netflix is for. And if you want to watch music videos, mash-ups, or cats doing foolish things, you’ve got your YouTube. That’s how it’s been since approximately the dawn of time, by which we mean roughly the last five or six years. But it looks like the times, they are a-changing, and YouTube wants to be your one-stop shop for video of any and all sorts.
Copyright is pretty murky territory. We all know you can’t steal someone’s stuff, but there are times when you’re allowed to use it. Unfortunately, some copyright holders don’t seem to get that “fair use” exists, and respond with takedown claims and legal threats. For some YouTube users facing threats over legal work, though, that fight may just have gotten a little easier.
If you’ve decided to pony up the $9.99 monthly fee for YouTube’s new paid subscription service, your money won’t be buying you access to basically any ESPN videos. The sports network — owned by Walt Disney Co. (80%) and Hearst (20%) — failed to negotiate a deal to have its videos available through YouTube Red. As a result, most of ESPN’s featured YouTube channels have gone dark.
By now, you’ve probably heard about the “Dancing Baby” lawsuit, involving a botched attempt by Universal Music to have YouTube remove a video 29-second video of a playful toddler because a Prince song can be heard in the background. Today a federal appeals court sided on one important issue with that kid’s mother, who is suing Universal, claiming the music giant overstepped the law by not considering that the background music falls under the umbrella of an acceptable fair use. [More]
When Microsoft teamed up with Machinima to launch a promotion that paid affiliated YouTubers for shilling for the Xbox One console in January 2014, we questioned whether any potential negative publicity and regulatory hassle would be worth it. Turns out, we were right to think the company would face scrutiny from federal regulators, as the Federal Trade Commission says it has cleared Microsoft of wrongdoing and settled charges that Machinima pushed videos of people endorsing the video game without disclosing they had been paid. [More]
Section 107 of the Copyright Act permits “fair use” of copyrighted materials “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research.” But the leaders of one California city don’t think this applies to critical videos made using footage from its city council meetings. [More]