Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 225 +-   Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos on Friday February 02 2007, @10:33PM

Posted by Zonk on Friday February 02 2007, @10:33PM
from the moment-of-zen-everybody dept.
google
business
internet
AlHunt writes "According to the folks at PCWorld Viacom has publicly scolded YouTube for continuing to host throngs of Viacom videos without permission. They are demanding that over 100,000 of its clips be removed from the site. This includes content from Comedy Central (no more Daily Show), MTV, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, and VH1. YouTube has acknowledged receiving a DMCA request from Viacom, and the article notes what a dire precedent this could be if Google can't reach an agreement with Viacom and its fellow IP holders."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Who didn't see this coming (Score:3, Informative)

    by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Friday February 02 2007, @10:36PM (#17869488) Journal
    You need to make deals with copywright holders to show/sell their product online. The hard part is negotiating deals with everyone, not just having a site that supports video.

    • You don't. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday February 02 2007, @11:03PM (#17869700)
      Actually you don't. The DMCA says that the user that upload the videos are the ones who may be breaching copyright. Online Service Providers such as YouTube have safe harbour from copyright liability provided that they remove content if and when they receive a take down notice from the copyright holder. What YouTube are doing is perfectly legal as it is.

      Reaching agreement with the big media companies might make reduce YouTube's workload and reduce news stories such as this one. But it's absolutely not necessary.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jkabbe (631234)
        But, honestly - what does the DMCA have to do with this anyway? This is a plain old copyright case (no measures taken to secure content on tv).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wordsmith (183749)
          The DMCA is about more than the anti-circumvention clause. It also lays out a framework for how to get your copywritten material removed from (allegedly) infringing sites or distribution points, and the conditions service providers must adhere to when notified of (alleged) infringement.
        • DMCA covers a number of different sections of Title 17 of the US Code. Safe Harbor for ISPs is covered under section 512. The part you're thinking of is the anti-circumvention provision of section 1201.

        • Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by nebaz (453974) on Saturday February 03 2007, @01:25AM (#17870638)
          There are tens of thousands of videos on the site. How is Google supposed to police them all? Removing existing clips is about the best they can do, and maybe banning a user who uploaded copyrighted content, to address your reupload thing. I suppose they could filter certain titles like 'Daily Show' but then the uploader could use 'Daily_show' instead. It'd be pretty hard to keep it all off, without a full time staff of video reviewers.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Score Whore (32328)
            That is Google's problem, not the content producers'. Google doesn't have a right to use whatever half assed business model someone comes up with. If there are technical challenges that make it hard, well that's why people with good ideas make the big bucks. If Google can't solve it then who ever does should get the money and fuck Google for not being able to figure it out. But to say "oh, they should be allowed to profit from massive copyright infringement because it's too hard/too expensive to moderate it

            • Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by DrEldarion (114072) on Saturday February 03 2007, @04:25AM (#17871336) Homepage
              The fault does not lie with Google. They are doing nothing more than providing a service where people can upload video. Are you going to blame the ISPs next because they facilitate copyright infringement, too, by allowing people to upload that material in the first place? Perhaps the people who programmed Bittorrent, too, since people use that for piracy? And the computer manufacturers, without which none of this would happen? Where does the blame chain end?

              The users who upload copyrighted material are the ONLY ones at fault. That's it. There is nothing besides that.

              To use your own analogies, Ford sells cars, but is in no way responsible for what their owners do with them. SmithKlein sells drugs, but isn't responsible if people OD on them.

              Just because people abuse a system doesn't make it the system owners fault.

                • Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by rufus t firefly (35399) on Saturday February 03 2007, @06:43AM (#17871912) Homepage

                  The fault does not lie with Google. They are doing nothing more than providing a service where people can upload video.
                  I recall Napster tried that defence. Didn't work very well.

                  The difference is, I think, that Napster's main purpose was to distribute copyrighted music; non-copyrighted stuff was the exception not the rule. YouTube's main purpose is to distribute bad karaoke videos and other things in the same vein, but happens to have people posting copyrighted material.

  • Bad for Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Friday February 02 2007, @10:38PM (#17869516)
    Honestly, the reason I watch the Colbert Report is Youtube. If I hadn't seen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I might not watch the show. I mean, they should complain about full episodes, but if there's 3 minutes of Colbert or Stewart on there, it's just advertising to watch those shows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eln (21727)
      Viacom does not object to their content being on YouTube as such. What they don't agree with is that YouTube gets ad revenue from their videos, and Viacom doesn't get a cut. YouTube (Google) has already negotiated deals to pay a portion of ad revenue to other content providers, such as CBS. Viacom, however, feels (probably rightly so) that their content provides far more traffic to YouTube than the other providers that have deals, and so they want a sweeter deal than the others got. Until they have that

      • Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:4, Interesting)

        by modecx (130548) on Saturday February 03 2007, @01:39AM (#17870718)
        But they don't stop to think: "Hey, someone liked this part of this program enough to go through the effort of editing our clip, and uploading the clip to let other people watch. His time wasn't free, and he deemed that our product had enough value that other people should also enjoy it. We aught to let those other people watch it, so they will be more inclined to watch our show live when they see it on their cable box, and those eyes will see our ads, too!"

        I mean, it's one thing to upload a whole program to these sites, those videos should, and undoubtedly will be taken down as they are uploaded... A smart company, however, would KILL for advertising like this. It's free, it takes no effort beyond the initial investment whatsoever, and it's highly effective because it targets a niche market which is proven to enjoy your product. If anything, Viacom's stockholders aught to be lynching the management for not figuring out a way to make this phenomenon *more effective*, to establish more mindshare, to draw in more viewers, to up the ratings, and to make more money in the end!

  • Since i know people are thinking it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday February 02 2007, @10:39PM (#17869524) Journal
    ...part of me wants to say "fuck 'em"
    because someone will re-upload those clips whether Viacom likes it or not.

    OTOH, I understand why GooTube doesn't want to piss off the big players in the media industry & will eventually compromise in one way or another.

  • Viacom has rights (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alshithead (981606) * on Friday February 02 2007, @10:44PM (#17869562)
    Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights. Viacom is operating from a position of having the law behind them. Because of that, they get to dictate terms. If they don't like the offer they can tell YouTube to fuck off and die. Maybe the folks uploading the content are ultimately at fault for the copyright violations but YouTube has the responsibility for removing that material at Viacom's demand. Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

    • Re:Viacom has rights (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sancho (17056) * on Friday February 02 2007, @11:12PM (#17869786) Homepage
      Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one. Viacom can't say, "Please remove all Daily Show content," or, "Please remove all of our content." It just doesn't work that way.

      This is one reason that negotiating a deal would be beneficial to both parties. There are many more users willing to upload content than Viacom employees working to search it out, or Youtube employees capable of removing it. The money lost in fighting the infringement is probably significant.

      That said, as long as it continues to be (financially) worth it, Youtube will continue to host videos and will simply have to deal with the takedown notices. And Viacom (and other copyright holders) will have to continue to monitor these sites for infringing content.
      • "Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one."

        I agree completely. While Viacom has the right to ask for the materi
    • Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights.

      Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped!

      Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people uplo
      • "Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped!
        Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!
        And somehow, we'll convince ourselves that it was in viacom's best interest, because we saw the clips and then watched the shows on TV... even if that's B
    • Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

      That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube. If I happened to have an interest in a television program or a movie and someone wants to take a 3min blip-vert and post it on youtube, I'd be pleased as punch. The only reason I saw the new Pink Panther movie was because I saw the "english lesson" [youtube.com] on youtube.

      The big theme in this thread is "free advertising". It'
      • Whoa there Socrates!!!

        "Such viewpoints undermine the value of information creation and distribution. Most of the time when I speak it's because I think I have at least some bit of insight that might be valuable to contribute to others. Don't you think there is a sacrifice of credibility when the motive for content creation is no longer dialog or social interaction, but is rather profit? Two questions we should answer: (1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?, and (2) what i
      • Well, that's fine if all the future of video holds is watching people like your next door neighbor do silly stuff on the Internet that is equally entertaining as watching him live over the back fence.

        Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

  • Dear Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Friday February 02 2007, @10:45PM (#17869578)
    Our business model is to host content made by others and become fabulously wealthy. If you don't allow us to freely show the material you've paid for our bottom line will be negatively impacted. Please reconsider, for at least as long as it takes to sell our Google stock.

    Sincerely,

    YouTube

    • Re:Dear Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02 2007, @10:55PM (#17869658)
      Dear Youtube,

      Our business model is to provide content which is trivially easy for people to duplicate and distribute, but to sue anyone who actually does that. You are next on our hit list.

      Plan A was to take control of all the hardware in the world away from its rightful owners, but that didn't work out so well. This has left us with no alternative but to sue you and everyone else.

      Sincerely,

      Viacom
  • fucking it up for the rest of us since 1971 (or 2005, depending on how you want to judge these things).

      • Yeah, but you want to fuck it up for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? You think those guys and their staffs should work for free to keep you entertained?
        No, but i also wasn't aware that entire episodes were being posted on YouTube. Wait, they're not. a 3 minute clip of a show isn't going to hurt Viacom's bottom line any more than someone skipping the commercials on their TiVo.
  • If allofmp3 is a guide, maybe we need rutube.ru. Eh, dot com. Eh, dot whatever.
  • ...Cagematch to the death! Two shall enter, one will leave!
  • With about 10 lines of perl you can rip down all of The Daily Show clips from the akamai servers
    • Rumor has it that all of the major bit torrent sites have all of the Daily Shows soon after they are aired, complete and ad-free. But, that's just a rumor I heard...
  • I wonder if the complaint will ever show up in the Chilling Effects [chillingeffects.org] clearinghouse list?

  • No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) on Friday February 02 2007, @10:57PM (#17869672)

    This just means that you have to find and download a high quality version of the show that you want to watch. You can still get it for free, but you have to work a very little for it. It will only stop piracy committed by the very lazy or very stupid.

    This move helps keep YouTube pure. Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content. Until the RIAA/MPAA copyrights their faces. You thought that we would only get mandatory full body coverings with a totalitarian Islamic government. Wait until you have to wear a burqa to avoid copyright violations.

    • This move helps keep YouTube pure. Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content.
      Until tattoo artists start asserting their copyrights against people who post pictures of themselves including said tattoos!

  • The takedown is already happening... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MsGeek (162936) on Friday February 02 2007, @11:03PM (#17869704) Homepage Journal
    Lots of content disappeared yesterday. A lot of it was Viacom stuff. I'm fully expecting more of my favorites to come up with "content removed" notices.

    Viacom has been known for its actions in the past. For example: yanking Ren & Stimpy from its creators because Viacom wanted more control. This is par for the course with these folks.
  • Short clips of their programs are just free advertising and add to the popularity of the shows. I can understand wanting to eliminate whole episodes, however.

  • Is unmanaged user uploads.

    Did anyone not see a potential problem with this?

  • The ugly truth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Friday February 02 2007, @11:43PM (#17869998)
    Viacom owns the material and they can do what they want with it. Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it. They may not charge to watch the videos but they use them to create value for the company. Viacom may actually want to leave the clips on Youtube but I'm guessing their lawyers advised that it sets a dangerous president. If they allow the clips they may loose control of the shows themselves. In some ways this is up to the court system and where they draw the line. Viacom can provide them with clips but it gets dicey when some one other than Viacom posts the clips without Viacom's permission. Whoever puts the money into producing the material should control it. If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more.

    • Re:The ugly truth (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 03 2007, @12:14AM (#17870188)
      it sets a dangerous president

      So true. We already have a stupid President, don't want a dangerous one now, do we? Oh wait...

    • Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it.

      You know, that simply doesn't reflect how the economy works. If I put up a cinema, there's no reason, moral, legal or otherwise, why you shouldn't open up a restaurant next door and make a profit from the customers I draw. True, you have no positive right to do so, but there's no restriction on such activity either. Do you want to live in a world in which companies and individuals can control all positive externalit

  • Viacomm is too f*ing stupid to realize they get a massive ratings boost from You Tube. Both Colbert and Stewart not only regularly mention the site, they obviously use it for show content.
    • But they also know that the value that YouTube is creating with their service is gigantic. That is: sure, YouTube is sending Viacom some free business---but YouTube has the potential to make far more than that themselves.

      Put another way, YouTube has far more to lose here than Viacom does.

      So Viacom is in fact quite smart to push hard for some sort of revenue stream from YouTube for their content.

  • The Internet is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by troll -1 (956834) on Saturday February 03 2007, @12:01AM (#17870118)
    Viacom's action could establish a precedent and have serious consequences for YouTube ...

    There may be consequences for youtube but perhaps the proverbial cat is out of the figurative bag. The real problem here is that the Internet is such an effective and efficient distribution system. I find myself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because it's there when I want it. I don't have to read a program guide or program a TV. I don't even have to own a TV.

    If what happened after Napster [wikipedia.org] (as a file-sharing service) was shut-down is any indication, the forces of supply and demand combined with the ubiquity and amorphous characteristics of the Internet are unstoppable, even if youtube were shut down tomorrow, you could expect to see the Daily Show popping up more prevalently on P2P, BitTorrent, or some obscure Russian site.

    And if the failure of all those DMCA P2P lawsuits to stop file-sharing from reaching an all-time high is any indication of the world in which we live, people are going to get the content one way or another, no matter what the copyright holders or the law says. All moral judgments aside, that just a fact based in reality.

  • Legal videos were erroniously taken down as well (Score:5, Informative)

    by supersat (639745) on Saturday February 03 2007, @12:08AM (#17870150)
    It looks like Viacom automated their DMCA complaints, and included several videos in their DMCA notifications that they clearly don't hold the copyright to. One of the affected users also writes a Harvard law blog, and posted about it [harvard.edu].

  • Thank goodness NBC has good sense (Score:4, Informative)

    by theurge14 (820596) * on Saturday February 03 2007, @12:32AM (#17870268)
    NBC has been using YouTube to their advantage to drum up interest in their shows. Recent clips that come to mind are Lazy Sunday and D*** In a Box from SNL:

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NBC [youtube.com]

    Viacom should be taking notes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BobSutan (467781)
      CBS did this as well. If it wasn't for YouTube I'd never known about Jericho. Its got an interesting premise and is worth checking out despite the imperfections in the show's execution. Looking back at the show's post-catastrophe storyline, it strikes me as a contemporary version of Battlestar Galactica (which is by far the best show on TV these days).
    • At least they didn't go Disney on YouTube and demand X dollars per every ten seconds of clip on the site.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Headcase88 (828620)
      You mean the Daily Show [comedycentral.com] is no longer available on the Internet?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rifter (147452)

      What use are the internets without my daily fix of Stewart and Colbert?

      Every Comedy Central show (or at least several, including The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, South Park, et al) has a presence on comedydentral.com that includes the shows as video clips similar to YouTube. The problem is that although the advertisements for their "motherload" section claim you can watch entire seasons of those shows online, the simple fact is that that is not true. In the case of the Daily Show and Colbert the shows

Search
/* * Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently * -- Alan */ -- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.