• $516 million to Sequoia Capital, which invested $9 million in the company
• $334 million to co-founder Chad Hurley
• $301 million to co-founder Steve Chen
• $85 million to Artis Capital, which invested $3 million
• $66 million to co-founder Jawed Karim

These numbers are all from documents filed by Viacom (VIA); they also indicate that five other YouTube employees received shares worth a total of $33.4 million.

Bear in mind that these numbers are based on the closing price of Google’s stock on Nov. 13, 2006. Google (GOOG) shares have bounced around dramatically since then, so the actual value of the payout could vary quite a bit depending on when–or whether–recipients sold their shares.

Why is any of this relevant to the case? Viacom’s suggestion is that YouTube’s employees and investors were focused on a big payout and wanted to build the company quickly–and that they were willing to accept copyright violations if that helped them achieve their goal. Again, not sure if this will matter in the court’s eyes.

In December, Facebook blocked Power.com, a site that links members’ social-networking accounts, from accessing Facebook profiles. It also sued the company, accusing it of trademark and copyright violations.

Power.com countersued Facebook in July. Its founder, Steve Vachani, has noted that sites such as Twitter, MySpace and Google’s (GOOG) Orkut enable access from Power.com and said at the time that his suit was “about users’ control of their data.” It brought on as legal counsel Scott Bursor, who fought Verizon Wireless (VZ) and Sprint (S) in early-termination-fee disputes.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The country’s parliament passed Section 92a of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act in 2008, also known as the “three-strikes” rule, which would have come into play in February 2009. If an Internet user was even accused of file-sharing or otherwise violating copyright laws, his or her Internet-service provider would cut off service.

The implementation of the amendment was pushed back to March 27 so that ISPs could agree on a code of conduct, but the rallying cry from Internet free-speech organizations such as the Creative Freedom Foundation pushed the Parliament to rethink its strategy.

How could a democratic government consider cutting off Internet access for people who haven’t been convicted of a copyright violation? Danny O’Brien, the international outreach coordinator at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that New Zealand changed its copyright law to be in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S., but then chose to interpret the language differently than the U.S.

Read the rest of this post

“I am extending the temporary restraining order because I’m not satisfied in the fact that this technology is not in violation,” Patel explained. “There are serious questions about copyright violations. There are questions about violations of the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and violations of these companies’ agreement.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Rent. Rip. Restraining Order.
• StealDVD? Well, You Were Asking for It…
• Sue. Rent. Rip. Return.
• Rent. Rip. Return.