User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

Viacom vs. YouTube: It's on like Donkey Kong


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Viacom vs. YouTube: It's on like Donkey Kong
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2007-03-13, 09:20

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/

It was bound to happen eventually. Viacom just dropped a $1 billion lawsuit bomb on YouTube.

They're claiming that YouTube intentionally violated their IP rights, which is completely ridiculous. Somehow, a small group of developers was supposed to develop software that detects every piece of copyrighted material in the world before it gets posted. Yeah, right.

Of course they could do a better job removing content, but they do fairly well in a lot of cases. Most stuff gets pulled unless YouTube has a standing agreement with the content owner.

I call bunk, but they'll probably win.

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
 
2007-03-13, 09:28

Hmmm..... Google then...ports all the technology to Google Video, closes YouTube because it couldn't afford to pay the damages, adn makes youtube.com a redirect to Google Video. Game over.

Paranoia?
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2007-03-13, 09:38

Google Video has a better interface to YouTube anyway, in my opinion - I wouldn't be opposed to this - + where else would I be able to watch full length Top Gear reruns?

But viacom have a fair point, youtube are gaining financially out of someone elses work. You imagine putting on a gig to 100,000 people at $10 a ticket and then just sticking on an Aerosmith mp3 you found on the net and keeping all the money.
  quote
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2007-03-13, 09:52

I don't think they have a fair point at all. They make an effort to remove copyrighted content (to a certain point). They just can't remove it all because of the volume of content that gets uploaded. Since there's no way to determine whether something is copyrighted before it gets uploaded with 100% accuracy, there's no way for them to block everything.

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2007-03-13, 13:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farenheit View Post
meone elses work. You imagine putting on a gig to 100,000 people at $10 a ticket and then just sticking on an Aerosmith mp3 you found on the net and keeping all the money.
What are you talking about?
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2007-03-13, 13:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
What are you talking about?
Youtube makes money from content that isn't theirs.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2007-03-13, 13:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farenheit View Post
Youtube makes money from content that isn't theirs.
So is just about any search engine…
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2007-03-13, 13:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farenheit View Post
Youtube makes money from content that isn't theirs.
After rereading your comment several times I finally understand the awkward analogy you were making.

I don't see how it is related at all though.

It really confuses me how this has become such an issue with TV and Film distributors and companies.

For the majority of "copyrighted" YouTube video content it is content that if not presented on YouTube would never be found or aired again by anyone. The days of making revenue off of it have been over, almost immediately from the time it aired. Viacom, and the other companies are only now upset about it because they realize there is actually a market of people who will watch this content again when able to easily search and view it and now they aren't making more money off of something they originally intended to only make money off of once.

It's ridiculous and I don't see how your analogy relates.

If anything though, YouTube should simply give the respective companies a share of the ad revenue generated from that videos page... if that is feasible and possible to organize at all.
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2007-03-13, 13:47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
After rereading your comment several times I finally understand the awkward analogy you were making.

I don't see how it is related at all though.

It really confuses me how this has become such an issue with TV and Film distributors and companies.

For the majority of "copyrighted" YouTube video content it is content that if not presented on YouTube would never be found or aired again by anyone. The days of making revenue off of it have been over, almost immediately from the time it aired. Viacom, and the other companies are only now upset about it because they realize there is actually a market of people who will watch this content again when able to easily search and view it and now they aren't making more money off of something they originally intended to only make money off of once.

It's ridiculous and I don't see how your analogy relates.

If anything though, YouTube should simply give the respective companies a share of the ad revenue generated from that videos page... if that is feasible and possible to organize at all.
Thats not the point, its not Youtube's content to decide what to do with it. If Viacom decide they don't want it elsewhere, then its fair game. Besides, theres plenty of dvd sales that are vulnerable to it.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2007-03-13, 13:49

It is the point because current copyright law is utter bullshit and simply does not mesh well with the way things are now.

I believe there is also legal precedent for when things are "unenforceable". I believe this would be such an instance, or at least could be argued that it is.
  quote
intlplby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-03-13, 15:05

basically if youtube loses and probably googlevideos too, this has the potential to go to some foreign company in a country that doesn't care as much about Viacom's trifling......

it's in Viacoms self interest to work with YouTube than try to bomb them with a lawsuit..... someone else will take their place... someone who cannot be regulated easily....

wait a sec......speaking of not being regulated easily.... i'm all for that.... i hope someone pops up that is not touchable by viacom or copyright law.....

if the content owners are not going to make an effort to make the content available then i support some other company doing it.....

i.e. if the content owner of all the A-team, original Looney Tunes or Airwolf episodes for example put that content online and revenue is made from advertisements... awesome... however if they don't do so, then I'm all for anyone else providing the content......

that's one complaint i have with the music industry.... so many good records are OOP and you can't get them any other way then illegally... if the record companies don't make them available then screw 'em......

take the album Led Zeppelin 2.... the '94 remasters suck-diddly-uck.... they should be make the '69 original Bob Ludwig master available.... if they don't then i'm for anybody that does.

same goes for Abbey Road black triangle japanese pressings, any OOP MFSL pressings, etc.....
  quote
curiousuburb
Antimatter Man
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: that interweb thing
 
2007-03-13, 15:09

Would Viacom have still filed suit against Chad et al when they were poor co-owners? Mmmmmm... Not.

Now that Googol-pockets have bought YouToob, the Viacom lawyers are fantasizing about an out of court settlement larger than the UN budget.

Opportunist vultures methinks.

To say nothing of the 'common carrier' precedent that ISPs and other telecom providers can hide behind (we provide the tubes, what people put in them after they've signed our "don't be evil" disclaimer is not our fault responsibility).

Two beans says this will never be a legal win, but the threat might make Google tempted to pay a go-away fee.

Meh.

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-03-13, 19:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryson View Post
Hmmm..... Google then...ports all the technology to Google Video, closes YouTube because it couldn't afford to pay the damages, adn makes youtube.com a redirect to Google Video. Game over.

Paranoia?
I'm not convinced that will happen.
  quote
cosus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: El Rio de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles
Send a message via ICQ to cosus Send a message via AIM to cosus Send a message via MSN to cosus Send a message via Yahoo to cosus Send a message via Skype™ to cosus 
2007-03-14, 03:31

Another point is the fact youtube hasn't yet found a way to become profitable.
  quote
dfiler
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
 
2007-03-14, 15:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
It is the point because current copyright law is utter bullshit and simply does not mesh well with the way things are now.
I completely agree.

Copy Rights (restrictions) are doing a disservice to humanity and are achieving the exact opposite of their original, stated goals.
  quote
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2008-07-03, 08:36

I didn't realize this suit was still going on, but it appears that it is. This article was just linked on Slashdot:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...orders-yo.html

YouTube has been ordered to hand over video viewing histories for every video ever on YouTube, including visitor IP addresses. They also want names, when they are available.

Response from the EFF:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07...its-youtube-us

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
prijikn
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
 
2008-07-08, 04:01

In my opinion You tube is better because million of people were watching on you tube and It is very useful.
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2008-07-08, 08:39

So they want your IPs and your names now?
Do you suppose Viacom is going to sue YOU if you've watched ANY copyright protected videos on YouTube?
  quote
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2008-07-08, 08:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprops View Post
So they want your IPs and your names now?
Do you suppose Viacom is going to sue YOU if you've watched ANY copyright protected videos on YouTube?
I can't imagine what else they would want IPs for. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that was the next step.

They could just be going after the uploaders, but that's not the data they asked for.

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
Is it 1981?
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Londontown
 
2008-07-08, 12:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by prijikn View Post
In my opinion You tube is better because million of people were watching on you tube and It is very useful.
Judging by their short post history, do we have another up-and-coming spammer? That's two in one day so far...
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2008-07-08, 13:09

I don't think it's going to be a problem in this case.

As for Viacom, they can stick it where the sun don't shine. What a great way to get people to watch your shows. Sue people who watch clips online.

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-07-08, 13:20

Well, it's worked so well for the RIAA... *cough*
  quote
Graculus
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK
 
2008-07-08, 14:43

Just putting an opinion from the other side of the fence. Don't get me wrong, I am a YouTube user, love funny cat films, and sad 80s post punk videos, and even take advantage of 'free' streaming of work from my portfolio, but...

My day job is as a cameraman, and video editor. One of my main clients is a pro UK football club, where I work on a commission based on the number of subscribers that club has to a paid-for service that contains my work, together with video highlights from the games the club is involved in, which is not my work.

This subscription area, which is operated by the rights holder for the footage is supposed to be the ONLY place online to get this footage. It's not of course. People record the same highlights from the TV shows and upload them on to file sharing sites. This takes food directly from my table by giving would-be subscribers an alternative. Is that right?

Worse. My own work, the daily video interviews with the 'stars' etc, also periodically finds its way on to these sites. I buy and maintain the kit, arrange the interviews, film them, edit them, export them, upload them etc. It all takes time and money. Some oik then breaks the DRM and uploads them to video sharing sites, in minutes. Is that right?

The argument that these sites do all they can, and take stuff down when asked etc, is not the point. The model is wrong, they shouldn't be putting it up unless they know it's clear. Impossible to know? Ignorance has never been a defence.

I have had a few films taken down upon request, which you'd think was proof that it's all operating within the shoddy model that they think is acceptable. However that's a few in a list of many of applications I have made that have promted zero response. I'd need a team of employees checking and sending in requests for everything that finds it's way up.

Now, I'm long in the tooth enough, and broad shouldered enough not to get het-up about it, I know it's part of the age we live in. As I say, I myself use such sites, but as a content creator who's commissioners choose not to give the content away, it's a bit crappy really.

Put it into your own lines of work. It's like a bloke over the street getting some keys cut for my car to run his taxi business. Is that right?
  quote
Koodari
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2008-07-08, 14:59

What an insane decision from the judge. Under no circumstances should Viacom get the IPs or user account names of any viewers, nor the uploaders who have not uploaded material that specifically infringes on Viacom's copyright.

If this is where things are going, I think I'll finally bother to set up Tor and Privoxy just for the heck of it.
  quote
Wyatt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
 
2008-07-08, 15:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graculus View Post
Put it into your own lines of work. It's like a bloke over the street getting some keys cut for my car to run his taxi business. Is that right?
No, that's not okay. And I don't think many here believe otherwise. Of course it's not okay to distribute content you don't own. However, it's also not okay for Viacom to gather personal information about me just because I've visited YouTube. Clearly they want that information so they can sue whoever they damn well please, and that has nothing to do with this case. It's as if the judge issued a search warrant for your home because it's in the same town where a shooting occurred. There's no hard link between most YouTube users and copyright infringement, so why disclose information about all of them?

Twitter: bwyatt | Xbox: @playsbadly | Instagram: @bw317
  quote
Doxxic
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
 
2008-07-09, 04:42

fcgriz, are you sure they want information about visitors, instead of posters?

I generally agree with Graculus.
The problem is that making a good movie can be a huge investment.
It's sad and pretty unfair that just because of YouTube lacks control over what they actually distribute, a lot of movies will be viewed without bringing any return of that investment to the owner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses
For the majority of "copyrighted" YouTube video content it is content that if not presented on YouTube would never be found or aired again by anyone. The days of making revenue off of it have been over, almost immediately from the time it aired. Viacom, and the other companies are only now upset about it because they realize there is actually a market of people who will watch this content again when able to easily search and view it and now they aren't making more money off of something they originally intended to only make money off of once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahrenheit
Thats not the point, its not Youtube's content to decide what to do with it. If Viacom decide they don't want it elsewhere, then its fair game. Besides, theres plenty of dvd sales that are vulnerable to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses
It is the point because current copyright law is utter bullshit and simply does not mesh well with the way things are now.
I agree with Fahrenheit. Brave Ulysses interprets his objection as a juridical point and reacts with a general complaint about the outdatedness of copyright law, but I think it's a moral point. Saying that a lot of YouTube material wouldn't be aired anyway, is basically comparable to justifying stealing with the fact that the stolen goods weren't being used anyway.
  quote
Koodari
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2008-07-09, 05:35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doxxic View Post
It's sad and pretty unfair that just because of YouTube lacks control over what they actually distribute, a lot of movies will be viewed without bringing any return of that investment to the owner.
And many a "Happy Birthday" is sung over telephone, without either the singer or the listener paying the royalties owed. It's pretty unfair and sad that such a thing would happen, too.
Quote:
I agree with Fahrenheit. Brave Ulysses interprets his objection as a juridical point and reacts with a general complaint about the outdatedness of copyright law, but I think it's a moral point. Saying that a lot of YouTube material wouldn't be aired anyway, is basically comparable to justifying stealing with the fact that the stolen goods weren't being used anyway.
No, because copyright and physical property right are not anywhere near the same thing. I think what little moral justification copyright has had, has been 100% trashed by later laws lobbied by copyright holders. It could be restored, but that would entail sizable changes in the terms.
  quote
Fahrenheit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Send a message via ICQ to Fahrenheit  
2008-07-09, 05:38

I really think defence of copyright breaches is bizaare - normal citizens in good standing, and who would be appalled by anything minor like stealing a toothbrush from a shop seem to be up in arms if anyone suggests that downloading a movie is wrong.

Well it is wrong! It may not be a physical crime, but you are still taking and keeping something that you have no right to - and the movie studio have lost out on one potential dvd sale. I don't care if people keep doing it at all, but you have to admit that its not defensible.
  quote
PKIDelirium
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
 
2008-07-09, 11:16

I think the copyright owners, if they are able to pull stuff from YouTube that they don't sell anymore, should be required to start selling it. If they get something yanked, then continue NOT selling it so nobody is able to watch it even legally, that's not fair either.
  quote
evan
Formerly CoachKrzyzewski
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Send a message via AIM to evan  
2008-07-09, 12:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKIDelirium View Post
I think the copyright owners, if they are able to pull stuff from YouTube that they don't sell anymore, should be required to start selling it. If they get something yanked, then continue NOT selling it so nobody is able to watch it even legally, that's not fair either.
it might not be fair but they have that right.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Uploading iMovie to YouTube fosterhere1 Genius Bar 1 2006-10-21 11:35
Google Video vs YouTube.. what gives? BarracksSi AppleOutsider 9 2006-05-08 18:48


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova