Viacom vs. YouTube - Whose Side Are You On? 353
DigitalDame2 writes "Lance Ulanoff of PCMag believes that the Viacom and YouTube lawsuit is a bad idea because it has the potential to damage the burgeoning online video business; instead, it could work with the millions of people who are currently viewing Viacom content on YouTube. On the other side, Jim Louderback, an editor-in-chief of PCMag says that Lance doesn't know what he's talking about: with all the content available online for free, Viacom can kiss those investments goodbye. YouTube is actively filtering, actively allowing uploads, and making money off of the content that's been uploaded. The courts will find that Viacom has been wronged, that Google has not done enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and that Google owes Viacom reparations. Whose side are you on?"
somewhere between! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Hom. Hoom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Treebeard: "I am on no one's side, because nobody is on my side."
Viacom? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the RIAA and MPAA as much as anyone, and I think the DRM schemes are a pretty cynical attempt at lock-in and control, but this is pretty clear cut: it's Viacom's stuff that Viacom's advertisers pay Viacom to distribute, and Youtube is cutting them out completely. This is the blatant stuff that makes them push for things like broadcast flags and DRM from end to end.
Neither side (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not on the side of either Viacom or Google. I'm on the side of the law. The law, specifically the DMCA, spells out what responsibilities Google has, and what Viacom has. Viacom's argument here is that, while Google lives up to it's responsibilities, Viacom finds living up to theirs inconvenient and therefore Google should be saddled with Viacom's responsibilities too. Sorry, Viacom, but that's a matter for you to take up with Congress (who wrote the law).
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't want people to see it, don't broadcast it in the first place.
If they want to control it properly, have could big rooms that seat maybe 100 people, and with large screens. Oh put them in public places where you can pay an 'admission' fee. You might want to serve food in the foyer as I tend to get hungry. Perhaps Popcorn.
Depends on the judge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Viacom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Short clips are fair use... (Score:4, Insightful)
I support the removal of full content, such as movies. It does not make a difference if they are chopped up into ten minute segments or not, because it is quite simple to put the full movie back together again. Regarding full television shows, though, I am still unsure. I believe that the boundary is blurred at that point. However, short clips of shows or movies should not by any means be removed. It does not matter if it is in order to placate the parent corporation or not. I hope that Google makes this one of the cornerstones of their defense, and really drives it home that fair-use is actively being usurped.
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I also know there's a couple dudes that hang out in front of the 7-11 a block away, and I know they sell crack, I've seen them do it with my own eyes. I also know the cops must know, but they haven't done anything about it. Maybe they got bigger fish to fry? Maybe they've just given up on 'da hood'. Maybe their building a case against a higher-up and dont want to rock the boat?
Whatever the case, it doesnt mean it's okay to sell crack.
Well Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. It's not a simple either/or question. Does Viacom have a right to protect its copyrights? Yes! Is one billion dollars in damages sensible, sane, or in any way indicative of the damage to Viacom's earnings? Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed. I don't know whether it's just greed, dislike of Google or that they want to destroy YouTube. But I have to say that I don't really care.
As far as I'm concerned, Viacom's IP isn't worth one billion dollars of anyone's money and for them to win would be a serious miscarriage of justice. IMHO, YMMV and IANAL; but if TFA wants to know who's side I'm on, then that's who, and that's why.
Now if Viacom want to drop the amount they're suing for to something that makes sense in this parallel universe, then I might change my mind. Otherwise, Go Google!
Re:That's like asking... (Score:4, Insightful)
that's an excellent point... whom in your opinion would the allies be?
Re:Viacom is misguided (Score:4, Insightful)
and just where else would you pull estimated damages for unauthorized sharing from?
everyone in the intellectual property business pulls damages out of thier ass... that's standard operating procedure. the IP business is about selling stuff that doesn't really exist... it's stuff you pull it out of your ass and sell to other people. clearly, if someone distributes your imaginary product without your authorization, you can sue them for all of the imaginary sales that you have lost out on. as long as we are working in the realm of the imagination, you might as well imagine big and try to jack google for a billion dollars.
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong CLEAR TO ME (Score:5, Insightful)
What's clear to me is that, if they could, Viacom and the rest of the industry would like to charge you every single time you ever watched a piece of their content. They haven't managed to yet devise a successful system to accomplish this (remember DIVX DVD's, or RCA SelectVision videodiscs that actually wore out on use), but they have never given up on this dream. And these kind of lawsuits are just more small steps along the path to the Utopia of having full control over every second of music, and every frame of film forever.
Half and half (Score:1, Insightful)
Not licenced content on YouTube is nothing new. The discussions about it have been going on way before Google took over YouTube and if Viacom claims they weren't aware of it until now, they're lying.
Considering this, I hope the case gets thrown out of court, setting a signal to others to make their claims when they become aware of the violation of their rights and not when it starts getting worth claiming.
It is not google's right (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not Google's right to index/distribute/host copyrighted content without consent. They want an opt-out model for copyright holders rather than opt-in, which is pretty shady.
BTW, I don't buy for 1 second that a company with that much brainpower, cash, and tech prowess can't prevent copyrighted videos from entering their system. They should ask CNET how they prevent pirated software from entering Download.com.
what you mean is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
As I mentioned in another discussion, it's not only difficult for YouTube to control the copyright on uploaded material - it's impossible. I can upload some clip of a swedish TV show, but who would they contact to see who owns the copyright to that?
I could also add "(c) Viacom" to some clip that I have made, does that mean that Viacom now actually owns the right to copy that clip?
Re:Short clips are fair use... (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that many seem to be forgetting is that short excerpts are defined as fair-use.
No they're not. [stanford.edu] The amount of a work that you use is only one of four factors that go into defining something as fair use. Other considerations include transformative value - for example, using a piece of someone else's work in order to comment on it or parody it. Most of the kind of clips you're talking about aren't transformative at all -- the meaning and significance of 2 minutes of Jon Stewart online is largely the same as those same 2 minutes within the context of a 30 minute show.
Re:Neither side (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, on the first one, the counter-argument is that my own Web-host does the same thing to my Web pages. They're uncompressed when I upload them, but if the requesting browser supports it the Web server will gzip-compress them for download. That would, by what you present, disqualify my Web host from the safe-harbor provision. Yet the case of my uploading static Web pages to my Web host to be downloaded by requesting browsers, where the Web host doesn't actively approve content, is exactly the circumstance envisioned by the authors of the safe-harbor provision.
For the third, yes, if Google/YouTube is actively looking for material and taking action based on what they find then they get excluded from the safe-harbor provision. But mere searches aren't quite enough to show that, since they can be done unofficially by employees not acting in their official capacity, or they might have been done as a consequence of a notification (in which case they clearly wouldn't disqualify Google from the safe-harbor provision, it's simply not reasonable to hold that by complying with it's obligations under that section Google sacrifices the protection granted by that self-same section if it complies).
The second one is the only one where Viacom has any solid arguments. And even there, the advertising and such isn't specifically attributable to the infringing activity. It's global to all activity on YouTube, including all of the vast sea of non-infringing material put up there by creators. I guess the question then is, is it reasonable to say that the safe-harbor provision was intended to block all financial benefit to any entity wishing to take advantage of it? If it wasn't then Viacom seems to end up having to show that the majority of content on YouTube is infringing somehow, that YouTube knows this and that YouTube encourages it at the expense of encouraging legitimate uses. That's the Grokster standard, IIRC, and I don't think Viacom can do that without a devastating response from Google.
Re:what you mean is... (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were not for the illegitimate content, they would never have acquired the enormous number of eyeballs and accounts on their services which is what, in turn, drove them to be in demand by the corporations that took them over.
Re:what you mean is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike Napster, Youtube has copyright compliance policy. Youtube removes infringing content when requested by the copyright holder, and users' accounts can be suspended, which is a meaningful way of removing content if it is found that it was illegally posted.
Therefore, Youtube may enjoy some of the DMCA safe harbor protections, where Napster clearly did not satisfy the requirements to enjoy those protections.
Remember... it's not Youtube that posts offending content, it is some users of youtube.
Do you think DSL/broadband providers like Verizon be sued for damages, and ordered to cease all transmission of copyrighted material over their network, because what made broadband popular might have been the ease with which people could download illegal electronic copies of DVDs [without a proper license to the movies]?
How can you prove that it is "illegal" content which made Youtube popular? Can you show that the owners of the majority of content that is viewable are really harmed by youtube exposure?
Youtube is great for short clips, but it's more suitable for previews -- it is not high enough quality to satisfy someone watching for longer than 10 minutes, and most users aren't allowed to upload videos longer than 10 minutes.
I think in the unlikely event, you see part of a commercial movie you like on youtube, I think you're more likely to buy the real thing in the future. (In other words, one expects to see a positive effect on the market for the content -- how does a 10 minute preview hurt the content maker, again?... Only if the viewer discovers they HATE the movie after watching the preview, and maybe they would have bought it otherwise, just to try it and see if it was a cool movie.)
Re:Well Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed.
And like SCO, their real goal isn't to remove their copyrighted works from the hands of others. Their real goal is to force Google into a settlement that leeches off a steady stream of cash from Google. I'm sure that along the way they will hint to Google that they would consider dropping the lawsuit if Google licensed their copyrighted content for use on YouTube. They will put on some bizarre restrictions that will make the cable companies happy. The Billion Dollars is just the opening high bid.
If Google is smart (like IBM in the SCO case), they won't bite and they will let their lawyers drag it out until the bitter end.
-I.V.
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong CLEAR TO ME (Score:1, Insightful)
The argument that Viacom would like us to pay every time we watch a piece of their content is irrelevant. I don't want to see that happen and so I will fight any legislation that supports it and I will support legislation that makes it more difficult. If Viacom ignores that legislation, than I expect our legal system to enforce its laws and penalize Viacom accordingly.
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of reasons to oppose restricting free speech in order to make information a scarce good that have nothing to do with "wanting everything for free", and in fact many of us would be happy to pay content producers directly for their work, if they'd just mind their own business instead of telling us how we can or can't use our own hardware and internet connections.
Re:Well Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like Google is leeching a steady stream of cash off of their products. Unfair, how?
Re:somewhere between! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, you'll notice that I'm not arguing that no law has been broken. Secondly, theft is a different crime, and different laws apply.Thirdly the situation is not comparable; if your high street store is selling a copy of my television, and I still have the fully functional original, then I'm probably not going to get too bent out of shape over it. Doubly so if they're selling tiny low qality copies of my television.
You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow.
Right! Because they... because... You know, now I think on it, you never did get around to making the case as to why that figure was even remotely justified, You just rehashed some tired old RIAA trolls, rolled out a couple of sloppy, emotive analogies, and then dropped in your opinion as if it logically followed.
Sorry, no sale.
Re:Viacom is misguided (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps your tune would change some if you'd spent a full year of your life, working 8-12 hour days pulling a full novel "out of your ass".
clearly, if someone distributes your imaginary product without your authorization, you can sue them for all of the imaginary sales that you have lost out on.
Except that, if you spent a year planning, writing, and editing the book, you'd hardly call it "imaginary". And if it really was imaginary, why would anybody else care to copy it?
Oh wait a minute, it's not imaginary?
as long as we are working in the realm of the imagination, you might as well imagine big and try to jack google for a billion dollars.
Viacom invests many millions of dollars to produce these shows "out of their ass". Clearly, their shit really doesn't stink since so many people want a piece of it. What Viacom should be focusing on, though, is how they can grab the YouTube phenomenon and run with it, rather than try to stop it.
Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Viacom is misguided (Score:4, Insightful)
i don't have to worry about that. i have a grownup job. i work 8-12 hours a day for assholes and no one will ever ask me for an autograph. if you are so worried about people taking your imaginary product, perhaps you should get a grownup job too, or maybe you should diversify your offerings with stuff that can't be easily duplicated. or better yet, thank your lucky stars that you are able to make a living as a writer and that you don't have to get a grownup job like the rest of us.
let's say that i "steal" your book... as in i tried to pass it off as mine and make money from it. is that really what youtube does? can you really watch a YouTube Productions Ltd. of "Desperate Housewives" in HD quality?
no, you can't. you have to watch shitty clips that are in no particular order. i can see that the TV networks are in real danger.
now, let's say i took your book, and said to everyone i know "mcrbids wrote a cool book and i want you to read it... here take this shitty copy of part of it." if it was a hardcopy book that would be fine, but if it was a PDF the shit would hit the fan.
how can you say, with confidence, that the 10, 100, or 1000 people i gave the PDF to would actually have bought the book before i gave them a digital copy? how many of them would say "thanks! i was just about to pay money for that." you can't, therefore the damages you claim are imaginary.
on the other hand, i can say with relative certainty that if i emailed your book to a thousand people, at least one of them would go out and buy it. especially if it was good enough for me to bother copying and distributing it in the first place.
people treat intellectual property the same way that they treat real property. that's just how it is. you can waste your writing time fighting that battle or you can find a way to capitalize on it. the choice is yours. the only difference between you and viacom is that viacom can afford to sue for billions and all you as an aspiring writer can do is cry about it.
have their ratings suffered? don't they get paid by the networks before the shows go on the air? has some network threatened to drop the show as a result of youtube? won't the shows end up on DVD and in syndication eventually where there are profits from those sales just like every other studio? if anything, viacom can justify raining the price of it's show to the networks thanks to all the buzz on the net over their fabulous shows.
how much money does viacom need to keep producing shows? how much do you need to write a book? is a billion dollars really justified?
is there value in putting your life on hold to create something of value forthe world to enjoy? of course there is. are the people at viacom doing the same thing that the aspiring writer is doing? hell no. they are a huge corporation with billions and they are only interested in making more billions. i'm a little light on sympathy for giant media companies at the moment.
artists need to make livings in order to keep producing, but at some point in the pursuit of a living it stops being about the art and starts being about enriching the lifestyle. it happens to artists and it happens to people with grown up jobs.
i think suing google for a billion dollars is a clear message that it's stopped being about the art for viacom.
Re:I'd agree except for one thing (Score:3, Insightful)