The deal may ruffle some feathers among other video makers, some of whom already complain that YouTube favors Machinima and a handful of prominent content partners. And people familiar with the funding round tell me that at one point Google considered routing the investment through its Google Ventures arm to try to allay those concerns.

YouTube will eventually train visitors to think of YouTube as an entertainment destination with a programmable channel guide to make finding premium content easier. “We learned from TV,” added Kyncl said. “You can press a button and relax.

Oh, go f**k yourself, Google. This is just as bad as companies forcing me to “like” something on Facebook before I can view whatever it is they want me to “like.”

Just let me thumbs up something, without forcing me to “upgrade” to G+, you dickheads.

The worst part of this? For a producer like me, I’m going to lose a crapton of potential upvotes for Tabletop, because the core of my audience is tech-savvy and may not want to “upgrade” to yet another f**king social network they don’t want or need.

Wheaton not logged into Google when he saw the Google+ button. When clicking on the Google+ button, a pop-up appears that says “upgrade to Google Plus.”

Quinn Emanuel Urguhart & Sullivan replaced Sidley Austin after they withdrew from the case. Schapiro is a partner at Quinn Emanuel. The U.S. government believes that Schapiro’s past record in copyright cases are a conflict of interest.

The first conflict of interest claims Schapiro’s involvement in the YouTube case against Viacom. YouTube is listed as the victim and as a witness in the criminal indictment against Megaupload. Emanuel cannot have an interest in both cases said the U.S. government.

Another conflict of interest is that Google will be called as a witness in the Megaupload case. Google had withdrew their AdSense services from Megaupload due to copyright infringement concerns.

“It is unclear how Quinn Emanuel intends to zealously represent defendants Megaupload Limited and Kim Dotcom while also protecting confidential attorney-client information gained in the course of representing other clients [...] particularly where those clients’ interests are directly opposed to those of the defendants,” said the U.S. government.

“Similarly, Viacom tried to import the common law ‘vicarious liability’ standard into the DMCA by an aggressive reading of a DMCA exception to the safe harbor where the ISP has the right and ability to control infringing activity. On that theory, any service provider who could block access to particular materials could lose the safe harbor protections. As the court recognized, that theory doesn’t make sense: the notice and takedown provisions specifically contemplate such blocking where there is notice of infringement – if Viacom were right, the safe harbors would hardly be ‘safe,’” wrote Corynne McSherry on the EFF blog.

The court even rejected Viacom’s claim that YouTube was “willfully blind” to infringement because they failed to monitor for it. Service providers do not have a duty to monitor and Viacom does not even qualify as a service provider under the DMCA because it is more like a storage locker.

A reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website,” a two-judge panel said in a 39-page decision.

So what does “knowing” actually mean? We will find out in due time.