Viacom Looks For Google Staff Uploads in YouTube Logs 308
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."
Pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
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: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.
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.
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
Potentially explosive? (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, yeah. Because Viacom says so. No, I do not think so. So long as YouTube has complied with each DMCA request it has received (it has), then, nope, Viacom, you have no case. So, in summary, Viacom, you have no case.
Teach your cartel to buy laws from the Congress (the DMCA), since you can't always get what you want (although it has helped to stifle the internet significantly, setting back the rapid progess seen in the late nineties enough that 1-2 years then is about equal to 5-7 years now). Good show, and good job! Hey, Viacom, you should get a job at Comcast! Heh heh heh.
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.
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.
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.
Re:How about looking for Viacom employees? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
Re:Pointless... (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 figured out, this lead to more fans so they could release the English language Anime and have a fanbase.
Re:Pointless... (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: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: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.
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.
Re:Pointless... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong analogy. Regarding the videos, with or without ads the content is basically the same. On your OS comparison, the content is 100% different.
A correct version of your analogy would be: why would someone use a OS build with ads on it instead of the same build without ads?
The answer is still the same, though: convenience.
Re:Pointless... (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 uncut and uncensored and commercial-free. Then they started putting logos at the bottom right. While she was flipping through the channels I noticed that one of them had imbedded ads for their programming at the top left.
But cable manages to stay in business somehow. Same goes here.
Re:Pointless... (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.
information you don't have (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointless... (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:Seriously, what?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pointless... (Score:2, Insightful)
She won't know the magic that we knew...
Imagine... right now you can type in a few words from any song, any movie... and in less then a minute be watching it somewhere.
You can tell google the few words of the song you remember, and it can tell you the lyrics.
You can have a friend over, and say "I saw a comic last night on TV, you'll love this guy" and have it up to show him as you're saying it.
THIS is what the internet is capable of, the magical world of data transfer we dance in daily. And this is what they seek to destroy
Re:Pointless... (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:Pointless... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you talking about your own opinion and perception, or that of a few hundred million people who do find it convenient?
Change Your Model (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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
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 it.
Should have been court ordered compromise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointless... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your tone suggests you know more about the video content industry than Viacom do, which suggests you must own a multi-billion dollar business right?
No. Instead, he's a customer. You know, those people that give their money to these corps in exchange for content. How they could get him to spend more money is entirely relevent.
believe it or not, the people running movie and TV studios know a lot more about their business, how it makes money, how much money, from who, under what circumstances, than any of us here posting on slashdot.
Fun fact: The 'business' fought home recording tooth and nail for fears that copying would kill the industry. Now we have DVD sales rescuing cancelled TV shows and box-office bombs turning a profit. They didn't know their customers.
Could it not be that they *do* know how much they have to lose from having their content on youtube, and that they *do* know how much it gets them in terms of advertising, and have decided that they would prefer not to have that content available free for damned good business reasons.
Despite history telling them a different story, they assume everybody'll put a ridiculous amount of energy into avoiding paying for content. They are not in touch with their customers, so it's important when they speak up.