Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos 225
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."
Who didn't see this coming (Score:3, Informative)
You don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:You don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
Re:You don't. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
Youtube was simply banning these videos before, but I think they realized they weren't going to keep their audience long by doing that. It's probably in their best interest to just make a deal with viacom.
Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every business on the planet has to face these kinds of cost-benefit issues and regulations. Drug companies. Car companies. Light bulb manufacturers. Oil refineries. Ford isn't allowed to sell unsafe cars just because it's hard and expensive to make safe cars. SmithKlein can't sell untested drugs just because it's astronomically costly to get FDA approval. Exxon can't dump waste into the ocean since it is difficult to contain their byproducts. GE can't sell lights that catch fire even though it requires constant checking and rechecking to ensure quality and safety.
Google could do as you suggest and staff a team of reviewers. Or they could require payment of service + real identification and when some putz uploads the latest American Idol, Fox could go and brutalize the idiot in court, having gotten the offender's name and address from Google.
Personally I don't think the value of the non-infringing material is so great as to justify the harm done to content producers. Either Google solves this or they should break out the checkbook.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
I recall Napster tried that defence. Didn't work very well.
Re:You don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:You don't. (Score:2)
Bad for Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:3, Informative)
It's not so much that Viacom hates their stuff being on the Internet, it's that they don't like other people posting their stuff on the Internet without getting a piece of the pie themselves.
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
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 deal, they will continue to make YouTube take down their content.
It's not so much that Viacom hates their stuff being on the Internet, it's that they don't like other people posting their stuff on the Internet without getting a piece of the pie themselves.
This does make a certain amount of sense. After all Colbert frequently refers to YouTube and has even directed his audience there to look at parts of his show, like the infamous chinese caricature voice bit that was only initially (and accidentally) broadcast to certain markets. He even covers YouTube stuff on his show (as have a number of "real" news shows. And as I have said before YouTube does a better job of hosting Viacom's content than Viacom does. If they were smart they would negotiate a deal with YouTube for some of the revenue and post the shows themselves, or else make their site better and easier to use like YouTube has.
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:5, Informative)
I thought so, too (Score:4, Interesting)
YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA [slashdot.org]
YouTube Restores Comedy Central Clips [slashdot.org]
Apparently it wasn't as clear cut as I'd recalled, though, and Viacom never actually gave YouTube permission to put the clips back up, they were simply interested in reaching an agreement ($$$). Apparently the recent threats came about because the talks fell through.
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to say. If I've got no way to find him, then I might not. Information can be free because we share it. I mean, something like Colbert or Stewart is only funny for a little while - I'm not going to get a laugh off of Bush jokes in 2015. In fact, most of the comedy there has a half-life of weeks if not days. Therefore, making my discovery of the material faster is pretty important.
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
Keith might be a bit long winded, but it made me want to check the show out a little more in depth.
Colbert I have never felt a draw for, but after watching a couple clips on YouTube I'm a little more inclined to add it to my pvr line up.
So yeah, it kinda works and occasionally I find some good amateur comedy bits I like.
Re:Bad for Viacom (Score:2)
That's odd logic. I've never heard of the guy, until I read the name about 3 or 4 posts ago. If he hadn't been on youtube
he wouldn't have been mentioned on this article so I would have continued never to have heard of him.
The idea that I would have 'discovered' him (if he's any good) inevitably simply doesn't make any sense. I'll probably go my whole life never having heard of many people.. some of whom I'd probably quite like if I met them.
Since i know people are thinking it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Since i know people are thinking it... (Score:2)
Of course that sucks and the alternative sites suck even more.
But if YouTube shut down that would also be the end of a lot of cool non-copyrighted stuff... there's lots of things I think to find, so I search on YouTube and lo and behold, there it is.
I think the major corporations should just shut up, for the good of the people.
Re:Since i know people are thinking it... (Score:2)
But if YouTube shut down that would also be the end of a lot of cool non-copyrighted stuff... there's lots of things I think to find, so I search on YouTube and lo and behold, there it is.
That's a good point. YouTube has done a lot of good, particularly for democratizing the process of content publishing (like for movies, music videos, etc). They even have a special account for amateur filmmakers that allows you to upload much longer clips. There was a story on one of the conventional news channels about how law enforcement is using YouTube to catch criminals, both by uploading clips with a plea for people who recognize the perpetrators to step forward, and by checking out other clips that depict crimes either uploaded by the perpetrators, victims, or bystanders. People have also used YouTube to protest and publish news that the major media refuse to report on and footage of stuff like police brutality.
YouTube is an important part of our society and represents the future of the communication revolution. They are just the beginning of a new era in which more and more power is vested in ordinary folk and more information is readily available rather than being kept in the darkness. This is precisely why small minds with big pocketbooks and vast power are afraid of its potential. It's not all silly videos of puppets singing dirty songs and naked WoW elves dancing. There's a lot of good stuff on YouTube.
Re:Since i know people are thinking it... (Score:2)
Do you also think the little guy should just "shut up for the good" when his content is illegally uploaded?
Viacom has rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
I agree completely. While Viacom has the right to ask for the material to be removed...it's their unfortunate (or not) responsibility to make the requests. If it bothers them enough, they'll sit back down and the table and compromise. However, the ball is in their court, it's their choice to compromise or just be dicks.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
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!
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 BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music...
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff!
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 BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music..."
Slughead and shithead, great band name!
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
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's rather way VCRs were tolerated and in many cases encouraged in the 1980s. It was a cheap way for a person to buld up a video library, and usually there was an into from the approperate station, such as HBO or Showtime. How many people got cable just so they could watch what their friends taped, or better still tape things beyond antenna quality.
I'm not saying Viacom isn't within their rights. I am saying in all likelyhood the increased viewship from youtube blip-verts results in higher commercial value of AV products.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube."
We're mostly on the same page but I think you and others are missing a crucial point I'm trying to make..."if you could OTHERWISE get paid for it". Yeah, free publicity is GREAT!!! But, we're talking about Viacom. They have plenty of publicity and a big following already. If my small, minor, mostly unnoticed content was getting play I'd be happy as shit. Viacom is huge already. They are a business and expect their content to bring in revenue. They have to protect their content. If they don't then their revenue declines and so do they. The stockholders are ones they are trying to protect...and, some of us might even own some of their stock.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
Viacom is huge. So was Royal Crown (RC) cola, but they didn't *really* make it to the 80s cola wars. While they had a huge market share at one point in history, they decided rather than spending money promoting their product they AFAIK saved their money and put it into their product. They lost their marketshare and were bought out.
I'm empathetic as to protecting the shareholder's interests. But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising. The nice thing about free advertising is the fact that it's "free", otherwise you'd have to pay for it. Even if most of the commercials for the dailyshow are done on viacom owned stations, that's airtime which could have been sold to someone else.
You are right, it boils down to what's in the best interest of the shareholders. The real question is does the increased viewership of the youtube blip-verts of the dailyshow increase the value of the show enough, or is there more money to be made by either charging for it or showing it with your own adverts.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!" There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world. They don't need the publicity or their shit wouldn't be so popular on YouTube in the first place.
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.
There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.
If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile [spam.com]. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"
If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.
http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom [answers.com]
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc [answers.com]
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc [answers.com]
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc [answers.com]
Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube [youtube.com] If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.
To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01
We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.
If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.
1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.
Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.
They don't n
Re:Viacom has rights (Score:2)
"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 is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
We're talking about Viacom. Their whole BUSINESS is based on creating and selling content. Their information ain't free!!! Just because I can rip off their content and put it on the intarnet it should be free? Don't think so Sparky...
Now I'll try to answer your questions...
"(1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?"
-I expect to pay people for content they create unless they willingly give it to me for free. Just like I buy books at the bookstore, magazines from the news stand, and internet service from my ISP.
"(2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
-Buy yourself a country and become a dictator. Then, you can allow anything your citizens create, or you can steal from other countries, to be free (within the boundaries of your country). If you choose to join the "free" world, that requires following their LAWS.
Re:Slanting (Score:2)
Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.
Re:Slanting (Score:2)
As a film festival organiser I can happily state that you are totally wrong.
We have around 60 hours a year of video submitted to us per year (average film length 5mins) for our regional short film section. We also have over 2000 titles in our archive. Almost all have 0 commercial potential, despite their quality, though a few have made it to tv.
People are out there making good free stuff to watch, you just got to know [bbc.co.uk] where [loadingreadyrun.com] to [britfilms.tv] find [othervenicefilmfest.com] it [liftfilmfestival.com]
Re:Slanting (Score:2)
Dear Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)
Sincerely,
YouTube
Re:Dear Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Dear Viacom (Score:2)
Have at it. We'll be right by your side when you (WILL!) need us.
Gleefully awaiting our retainer,
The Lawyers
Re:Dear Viacom (Score:2)
Actually, their business model is basically the same as youtube - make money via advertisements while distributing content (and both mediums are trivially easy to duplicate to boot). The only difference here is that Viacom made the content. Should they be pissed? Sure, it's their right since it's their content.
Also, did you miss the part where Viacom has already requested that specific content be removed? Court does not appear to be their first choice.
Re:Dear Viacom (Score:2)
It is unbecoming to whine because an access to 'free' illegal material is made to dry up.
Re:Dear Viacom (Score:2)
Parent: The alternative being DRM. Personally, I'd prefer for normal consumers to have their fair use rights, and for copyright violators to be sued, than to give no rights to anybody.
Using DRM does not replace the need to take legal action against those infringing copyright; inevitably, copy protection *will* be removed by someone, by some means, and if they were then allowed to *totally* freely distribute this unprotected copy, it would likely become more widespread than the original DRMed versions.
Bear in mind that this may include more than P2P; e.g. "pirate" DVDs at half the price and ten times the availability of the original.
Viacom... (Score:2)
Re:Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free? (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Rutube? (Score:2, Funny)
Google vs. Viacom... (Score:2, Funny)
Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show (Score:2, Funny)
Google usually publishes DMCA complaints (Score:2, Interesting)
No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
To be fair, videos of treadmill-dancing, mock solo light saber fights and soda fountain videos will also be allowed so long as the music is licenced for redistribution like that. Those people can use podsafe or creative commons music for that end anyways.
Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
Re:No more greedy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
I think many of them are doing that just now. A month ago, I've heard of an open source video site system that does much of what YouTube does. I'm sure many people are using such software to their own copyright infringing desires.
Re:No more greedy man's BitTorrent (Score:2)
Actually, The Daily Show and other Comedy Central offerings are quite good.
The takedown is already happening... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:The takedown is already happening... (Score:2)
Re:The takedown is already happening... (Score:2)
The creators sold it, it wasn't stolen.
Re:The takedown is already happening... (Score:2)
Agreed, but we've hit a bit of a sticking point on that...
If you put a million monkeys at typewriters, sure, you'll eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare. But that doesn't mean you get it for free - The "work" just goes from "writing", to "finding".
YouTube has a lot of good, noncommercial content. It has far, far more absolute rubbish that would take a million monkeys with computers a million years to filter through to find anything worth watching in the first place.
Viacom is being stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
The Essence of YouTube (Score:2)
Is unmanaged user uploads.
Did anyone not see a potential problem with this?
The ugly truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The ugly truth (Score:4, Funny)
So true. We already have a stupid President, don't want a dangerous one now, do we? Oh wait...
Re:The ugly truth - fair use (Score:2)
There is no such thing as IP OWNERSHIP.
I hope Google fights this, but I am sure they will just settle with the whiners.
Cheers
Re:The ugly truth - fair use (Score:2)
Ah, the lament of the "I want it free" crowd.
"Fair use allows for clips, etc. Viacom could bitch if the entire show was uploaded, but copyright is not ownership, it is just exclusive right to publish for a limited time ( well, sorry Mickey ) with the ability of others to use excerpts, and make parodies."
Well, lookie look, you just shot YouTube in the ass. YouTube ignores the content creater's exclusive right to publish. Those excerpts are entire segments, not snippets and YouTube is not hosting parodies or referential content, just the raw content.
Re:The ugly truth (Score:2)
1) No. 2) It's a negotiating tactic. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 externalities of their actions? As Lemley [ssrn.com] explains, monopolies are the best way to achieve that kind of control. The pernicious idea that copyright confers an exclusive right to profits (both direct and indirect) is at variance with almost all other market activity.
Where on earth does this come from? Market economies and the labor theory of value are a modern phenomena. Most societies in history have been organized quite differently, with vastly different conceptions of property and ownership. (Your claim preceeds the earliest writing by thousands of years!)
If you ask me, Viacom's action is a negotiating tactic. They know they benefit from the distribution of their programing. But they also know there's money to be made here, so they want as big a cut as possible. Both sides are in a contest to determine how to divide up the pie - which really comes down to a question of relative strength and weakness, not right and wrong.
Slavery and spirit (Score:2)
I'm not sure what argument you refer to, for my remark was a simple response to the claim of a 12,000 year precedent for a modern phenomenon. If I were to make an argument here, it would be about being careful about placing historical phenomena into modern categories (or vice-versa). Slavery, for example, has been understood in a variety of ways. In Roman society, for example, slaves were a class of people with specific rights. In antebellum America, slaves were not considered people at all; thus the idea that it was "wrong to enslave people" was not be incompatible with the institution. American slavery was made even more brutal by the application of a modern conception of property to these non-persons.
With regards to intellectual property, some societies have seen cultural objects as having a life or spirit of their own: they could not be "owned". For the Trobriand islanders, the holder of such an object was obliged to pass it on; the object acquired its great value by virtue of its being passed from person to person. In many cases (and to an extent even in Roman society), some objects were thought to carry a spiritual connection which could not be overcome by simple possession or physical control (see Marcel Mauss, The Gift). This is perhaps similar to our idea, embodied in copyright, that a work such as a novel is bound to its author even though we may hold it in our hands - though for us, it is the author who has the right over the work, not the work itself which possesses a spirit.
the sad part is (Score:2)
I think they know this quite well. (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re:The Internet is the problem (Score:2)
Re:The Internet is the problem (Score:2)
No, you find yourself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because you have no life.
Legal videos were erroniously taken down as well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legal videos were erroniously taken down as wel (Score:2)
Odd, what if the subscriber believes that it was not a mistake or misidentification but rather done on purpose to interfere with his business or rights?
Why not just plain wrong?
all the best,
drew
Thank goodness NBC has good sense (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NBC [youtube.com]
Viacom should be taking notes.
Re:Thank goodness NBC has good sense (Score:3, Informative)
PSS (Pretty Simple Solution) (Score:2)
Find a new, more neutral video transport method.
Could someone make a YT web "site" based on the Bittorrent protocol?
Viacom is the ones with the crappy keyboards (Score:2)
The problem is lobbying, not suing (Score:2)
Rather, the problem is the abuse of the copyright laws (and legislature in general) that is done by some of the corporate copyright holders. The laws are constantly extended for longer and longer period in many countries, often by pressure from countries like the US, where bribing legislature is a legit business; this happens in violation of the reason for which the said laws exist. This is, of course, only possible because politicians are corrupt and largely unchecked, and succumb to bribes, in this case, from the media and entertainment companies.
The said companies have generated enormous wealth via the copyright monopoly, and have strong interest to use this wealth to do two things -- the first is to extend their monopoly power over existing works, and the second is to create bareers to entry for new players. That unfortunately includes players with new business models and technologies.
So, until there is strong enough pressure on politicos from all of us for fairer laws regarding copyright so that the damned bribed assholes that vote the laws get a clue and take action, the laws will get more draconian, and the abuses more egregious. Just look at Sweden and their pirate party.
My video was removed unfairly (Score:2)
What method did Viacom use to specify which videos violate their copyright? Is there no penalty for false accusation? Is it possible that Viacom targetted videos that are not their own in order to harass and intimidate YouTube? Is it possible that they did this in order to overwhelm he copyright complaints department of YouTube?
Could've been worse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Series of Tubes.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A Series of Tubes.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 are broken up so that you can see the interviews and a few seperate bits that Comedy Central considered especially funny, but not the whole show. In the case of South Park, what episodes are on there are inexplicably missing bits that come in between the breaks they have made in the episodes. They also don't really have the episodes that just came on even though even the website claims that they do.
When I missed "Go God Go part II" which was part 2 of a humourous South Park take on the debates on religion, the causes for war, and teaching evolution in public schools (which still does not happen in way too many districts for a 21st century America), I had to wait for it to come on YouTube because unlike every other South Park episode in existence it was not repeated ad nauseum through the week (they showed some ancient episodes instead) and it was never available on the comedycentral.com website (which would have been missing parts and laden with advertisements anyhow). There is the additional problem that though YouTube seems to have no problem giving you a direct link to any video on their site, there is no way to navigate Motherload other than the obscene and fairly broken flash interface Comedy Central foists upon us.
If Viacom just did what consumers wanted and actually made shows available for viewing in their entirety when you miss them or when you want to refer to them later there would be no need for YouTube for these shows. No one would care about putting stuff up there otherwise. As it is, YouTube is easier to use and provides the content people want. In any event their very complaint is unjustified and proves that YouTube's policy works. They quickly remove any content that breaks copyright as soon as the copyright holder complains. That's what happened here. And, again, just like the music industry, they have created their own problem because they cannot see that this "violation" fills a void in the market that they could exploit themselves if they had a brain in their head instead of a head in their ass.
Re:A Series of Tubes.... (Score:2)
First he criticised Viacom's publicity for the show itself for being misleading. Then he criticised them for missing bits out between the breaks, not the existence of the breaks themselves.
I agree that too many people on
Re:A Series of Tubes.... (Score:2)
1) fly to the US, submitting my fingerprints and retinal scan at the border
2) rent an apartment with cable
3) buy a DVR & program it for remote access
4) fly home & watch Colbert & co once downloaded
Re:Drop them (Score:2, Insightful)