770839
story
Comments: 308 +- Technology: Viacom Looks For Google Staff Uploads in YouTube Logs on Monday July 14 2008, @11:28AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
Barence writes "Viacom wants to know which YouTube videos have been uploaded by members of Google's staff, in what could be a potentially explosive aspect of its copyright infringement claim against the search giant."
Related Stories
To criticize the incompetent is easy; it is more difficult to criticize
the competent.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's going to be a showdown here, because i don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.
I'm not a fan of Viacom's behavior either, but it seems strange to suggest that they would make more money that way.
Parent
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?
Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience. Same idea here, people will go where it is convenient, be it Viacom's site, YouTube or TPB.
Parent
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is convenient, in a sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Default installation on new machines and network effects ("I can have the same programs/open the same files as everyone else I know, and I can use the same interface I've seen elsewhere") DO make it convenient. Not necessarily good, but convenient.
If another OS can get enough market share, and open standards take off, some of that will go away. But it does exist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, are you implying that because I say something positive (or even non-negative), or have a different opinion than you, that I must work for Microsoft or have some sort of financial stake in the company?
Do you actually expect people to discuss topics like these with you with that sort of attitude?
Re:Pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.
I've always wondered about that. If internet advertising doesn't work, why does TV advertising? I suppose it could just be audience size, but if advertisers are so good at their job, why can't they produce more tailored ad campaigns for a more fractured audience given how much more (potentially at least) they know about the person seeing the ad.
The one thing Internet advertising has given ad managers is more accurate information on response rates. How do you measure TV response rate, the number of people phoning a number asking for a product after a advert goes out? that would seem to give vague numbers at best.
Perhaps it's just more honest response rate which are harder to hide that ad managers dislike about Internet advertising.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock. And there is no easy way to totally cover the users monitor for five minutes of fullscreen ads on the web that they cannot disable.
It's totally different.
Internet advertising does work, but the payback per ad view is trivially small. I've experimented with ads on my site, and the revenue is even more laughable after the ad managers take their cut.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock.
Sure they do. It's called a Tivo.
The content can be freely recorded and played back in any
fashion you like. You can even cut out the commercials if
you really want or just skip over them in 30 second intervals.
Hulu is a huge step backwards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?
Why do people watch movies on TV when you can rent the DVD for a dollar and see it ad-free, uncut, uninterrupted, uncensored, in your choice of widescreen or standard, that you can pause to go to the bathroom?
I was watching What Women Want this past weekend at a friend's house (I don't have cable) and was appalled that cable keeps sucking more and more. In the early eighties movies were u
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, SouthParkStudios.com proves this. But Viacom is not interested in looking for new business models. They are looking to protect their existing business models, and YouTube hurts these.
The thing is, it's not sharing clips that hurts Viacom's business. That probably helps, free publicity for programs.
What hurts Viacom is user-generated content: eyeballs going to watch stuff that is produced totally outside the normal distribution model.
So Viacom is not IMO trying to protect its copyrighted content. What it wants to do is scare people who use YouTube into thinking "my personal data ain't safe", to create a chilling effect that will stop user-created content.
Imagine if Viacom had been infiltrated by Scientologists and they could now get access to logs of who uploaded, and who watched, videos by Anonymous. It's not likely but the mere idea this could happen will drive some people away, fracture the community, and make passive TV watching seem safer again.
OTOH, Viacom, not being an Internet company, does not realize that this kind of attack on a community always has the exact opposite effect.
So the result will be a hundred new video sharing sites, and a much more difficult situation for Viacom, both for copyright takedowns, and for competition to their programming.
Parent
Re:Pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)
While it would be nice to think that was the case, I don't think it's really happening yet. Sure, people will go and watch a few user created videos when there's nothing new to read on Slashdot during their lunch break, but I can't see the family gathering round the computer to watch "Jim's Low Budget Talent Show" in the same way as they would for "The X-Factor".
That might change at some point in the future, but from my highly unscientific surveys, most people browsing YouTube are doing it to watch clips from Top Gear and the like.
Parent
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally unscientific survey: my 4-year old daughter prefers to browse YouTube than television. Admittedly she tends to follow pop videos. But she prefers the mouse to the TV remote.
If it's true that people use YouTube to watch clips from TV programs, then Viacom are even stupider than I thought...
But stupid or not, this seems to be the start of the TV industry joining the music and movie and telecoms businesses in attacking the open Internet.
I wonder what kind of Internet my daughter will have when she grows up.
Parent
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder what kind of Internet my daughter will have when she grows up.
Don't worry, it'll still have porn on it.
--riney
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While it would be nice to think that was the case, I don't think it's really happening yet. Sure, people will go and watch a few user created videos when there's nothing new to read on Slashdot during their lunch break, but I can't see the family gathering round the computer to watch "Jim's Low Budget Talent Show" in the same way as they would for "The X-Factor".
No, but think about how many people make and watch say, fan-made music videos. And think of all the internet memes that have happened because of user-made content. Sure, user-made content won't have the same appeal as major shows, but I think that a lot of people spend an hour watching user-made content and might watch 2 hours of "normal" TV.
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
What Viacom is doing is absolutely pointless. Want to make money? Have free downloads of *all* your shows on your website. And upload a bunch on YouTube too, why? Because YouTube is an easy way to watch videos, and I believe that Google will pay you to have ads in your videos.
That's like a movie theater making an illegal print of a movie, showing it in their theaters, then sending a token $1 for each showing back to the theater. And when the studios complain, they say, "Shaddup. What are you complaining about? You're making money, aren't you?"
Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.
Umm... Lets see. Which is going to get more views, either A) an episode that gets shown on TV say 10 times a year or B) the same episode that is online for viewing 24/7. More views == more money, granted, online distribution has a slightly lower profit margin, but it also has slightly lower costs.
And by regulating, who can see their work, they are missing out on a whole bunch of fans. Anime proved this. Sure, people download anime from Japan, translate it and repost it, but as the Anime studios figure
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.
No, they should be able to decide how much to CHARGE. Very distinct and important difference.
Re:Pointless... (Score:4, Informative)
That's like a movie theater making an illegal print of a movie, showing it in their theaters, then sending a token $1 for each showing back to the theater. And when the studios complain, they say, "Shaddup. What are you complaining about? You're making money, aren't you?"
Oddly enough, this is exactly how radio works. As I understand it, anyone is allowed to play any song on any radio, so long as they pay their royalties through a system which has been established for this purpose.
I'm not going to say whether that's a good thing, just interesting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough, this is exactly how radio works. As I understand it, anyone is allowed to play any song on any radio, so long as they pay their royalties through a system which has been established for this purpose.
Yes, but the royalties are negotiated among both partners. You can get a license for a public performance of a movie as well, if you want to.
Now, it would be interesting if there was some sort of radio model for movies, but the difference is that radio stations choose the play list. They don't ju
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
eh?
By removing all of THEIR content from youtube, surely they are leaving this exciting new sector WIDE OPEN to people who want to (for some reason) make program they release for free?
If their 'business model is dead' (yawn) then you should be happy to see the product of such a dinosaur-system of content removed from youtube...
You can't have it both ways.
Re:Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is suggesting no such thing.
Viacom bought the relevant law: the DMCA. Now they are mad because
they have to use it in order to get stuff purged from YouTube.
Viacom is upset because they have to use the law that they bought
and paid for. Boo hoo.
This is NOT about letting the shoplifters run amok in the candy store.
This is about Cadbury going house to house with stormtroopers.
Parent
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I dislike the action, it gives Google (and ever other major corporation) a reason to care about my privacy rights. Hate the means; love the ends.
common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense aside, uploading copyrighted videos is clearly against any corporate internet use policy. Why should Google be held liable for the illegal actions of its employees? It's not like Google encouraged its employees to upload the Daily Show. If that doesn't hold up in court, you just got yourself a convenient way to screw your employer (convenient if, for example, you were planning on leaving the country).
Re:common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Why a potentially explosive aspect? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was uploaded by Google's staff as part of their paid job, then yes, Google is intentionally infringing their copyright.
But why would Google be blamed for an employee acting on his own to upload something?
Re:Why a potentially explosive aspect? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want to know is how many Viacom owned clips were uploaded by Viacom employees. I bet there were more uploaded by Viacom employees than Google employees.
Parent
Re:Why a potentially explosive aspect? (Score:4, Funny)
In the Viacom board room:
"One of our own employees is uploading to YouTube? I don't know who this Jon Stewart guy is, but I want his head on a silver platter!"
Parent
Re:Why a potentially explosive aspect? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
They'll see my uploads... (Score:4, Insightful)
Though I don't understand why it matters if I uploaded something on my own time or not. I was allowed to do all sorts of things on my own time. Sure, I probably couldn't start another search engine, but if I wanted to upload a couple short clips from Comedy Central or whatever, who cares? If it's 10pm at night and I'm at home using my own hardware, what the hell does it matter that I work for Google? I mean, sure, if it's not Fair Use, they could come after me personally, whatever. But I fail to see the connection to my workplace.
-B
Parent
Oh noes, the Janitor!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Staff posting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would staff be posting Viacom material from their work place? More likely if any video was posted to Youtube, they would do it from their homes, which are NOT under googles (or any other employers) control. Viacom could therefore go jump at making tenuous connections between being employed by company x, and company x endorsing some behaviour.
Re:Staff posting? (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd be surprised what a night shift can do to people. That and the amenities Google provides to its employees, chances are you will find more than a few employees working late into the night and then taking a 30minute break *cough*. It's speculation but the point is it is quite possible for someone to upload copyrighted stuff using "employer resources".
Parent
How about looking for Viacom employees? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely there must be a few viacom employees (or employees of its partners) who have either watched or uploaded or both (and I am talking about copyrighted crap) videos to Youtube. How about looking for them?
Hell how about looking for MS employees? or Boeing? Might as well look for everything..Good luck Viacom /spit.
Re:How about looking for Viacom employees? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How about looking for Viacom employees? (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Hoist on own petard (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet Google is thinking that maybe keeping identifiable logs isn't such a good idea now...
information you don't have (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
why this is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
what the internet has done to intellectual property is pit the little guys against entrenched dying large corporate machines. usually all the little guy can do is run and hide. but when its corporate machine versus corporate machine cast in the role usually occupied by the little guy, this is good because google can throw clout into a fight where the little guy can only hope to be popped like a zit. so precedents can fly out of this that can protect the little guy
Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone's employee goes above and beyond the call of duty to help you, that reflects on them as a company.
If the employee screws you over, that reflects on them as a company. Say a middle manager denies you your refund on a defective product. Now, to listen to several people above, "What problem is it of the store's that the manager ignored consumer protection laws?" - should the manager be sued or personally liable? Of course you'd go after the company.
If you get screwed by an employee out of their mandate (say, copying your credit card number down, something clearly not in their job description), you still don't go after the person. You'd be suing their employer for the actions of their employee on the job. Vicarious liability. (Of course, the employee would also be guilty of criminal charges.) Any loss inflicted on the company would either be picked up by civil suit between employer and employee or professional insurance, etc.
Why would this be any different?
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
Viacom: YouTube shows our copyrighted material. Google, you own YouTube and a lot of money, give us some of your money or else.
Google: Safe Harbor defense! Under the DMCA, we can't be held liable if somebody else posts copyrighted material on a site we host, if we don't know that these strangers are posting copyrighted material.
So Viacom thinks that if they can show that Google employees knowing posted copyrighted materials to YouTube, then Google won't be covered by the Safe Harbor defense.
This is what TFA says. I have no idea if that is what Viacom is actually doing, or if it would even work. But it is interesting.
Parent
Which is just more evidence... (Score:3, Insightful)
Employees != Google (Score:3, Insightful)
...they're individuals. Doesn't this go against Viacom's original claim that they weren't trying to identify particular individuals?
WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
Google should just buy Viacom
Change Your Model (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that YouTube is an excellent way to popularize Viacom's content, but that's not the only business concern of relevance here.
Viacom wants to use YouTube-esque short clips of its videos as a revenue source. And, if Google's employees are uploading infringing content, then YouTube may be actively hampering Viacom's ability to earn ad revenue from its original works. Comedy Central, for example, offers years of Daily Show, Colbert Report, and South Park clips that are supported by ads. YouTube is likely limiting Viacom's ability to capitalize on its intellectual property by substituting for Viacom's in-house video service. That is textbook copyright infringement.
Parent
Don't be silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only is this not "interesting"; its also stupid, of course Google employees ARE NOT uploading unsanctioned duplicates of tv programmes. Google are making more money than the us tv networks legally, why on earth would they pay some people to risk it all. They wouldn't. *IF* a person or two were found to have uploaded unsanctioned duplicates AND happen to work for Google then it would be someone who happens to work for google, not a google employee asked to do so. Bank on it. Now fix Google groups 2 damn
Re:Google should comply with reciprocal clause. (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's a good reason for Google to look for Viacom employees uploading infringing content. One defense Google can raise is "Plaintiff can't keep it's own employees from doing X. How can they then in all fairness expect us to do what they can't or won't?". And yes, judges do listen to arguments like that. It can leave a plaintiff having to walk a very fine line or risk having their demand thrown out as unreasonable (by their own admission) or barred.
Parent
Re:Seriously, what?! (Score:4, Informative)
Are you saying that Viacom is a bunch of whores? Dude, I like whores! The difference between Viacom and a whore is, whores are less dishonest.
Parent