<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Viacom runs Web video, claims copyright - Valleywag Comments]]></title>
		
	    	<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:46:05 PDT]]></lastBuildDate>
	    	<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:46:05 PDT]]></pubDate>
		<link><![CDATA[http://valleywag.com/tech/copyfight/viacom-runs-web-video-claims-copyright-294863.php]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Viacom runs Web video, claims copyright]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://valleywag.com/tech/copyfight/viacom-runs-web-video-claims-copyright-294863.php#c2281965]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<P>
The problem is Knight's gripe that Viacom didn't seek his permission when he really doesn't have any facts about the deal between Viacom and Google/YouTube. You're giving YouTube the right (a non-exclusive right, but the right nonetheless) to license the work you upload. I'd be *very* surprised if some cash hasn't passed from Viacom to YouTube as part of this show.</P>
<P>
Not that it makes Viacom's actions any less despicable -- you'd really expect them to grant the right to post the segment to the person who created the original source material.</P> <p>MotoTom</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[MotoTom]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[34:294863:c2281965]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:46:05 PDT]]></pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>