Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos

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."

Comments

A Series of Tubes....

[MicktheMech]

What use are the internets without my daily fix of Stewart and Colbert?

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[Headcase88]

You mean the Daily Show is no longer available on the Internet?

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[Orbit.de]

Its called DVR... Look into it

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[DrSkwid]

so, all I have to do is :

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:A Series of Tubes....

[rifter]

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....

[DaveV1.0]

Quit your bitching about advertising. How do you think they pay for the show?

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[Dogtanian]

Quit your bitching about advertising. How do you think they pay for the show? What exactly are you talking about?

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 /. criticise advertising when they're not paying for the show any other way, but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[Falladir]

Your indictment of Motheload for general crappiness is 100% correct, but at one point you go to far.

"No one would care about putting stuff up there otherwise."

People would still watch the stuff on youtube because it's easier (in some cases) to navigate a single repository for all TV than to go to Motherload for this, CNN.com for that, ESPN.com for the other.

By the way, I personally don't mind that Motherload chops the Daily Show into bits. I don't really care for the interviews, so I just skip them. Streaming flash technology isn't so hot that I could do that painlessly if the shows were in one piece.

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[Nuskrad]

Or you could just watch The Daily Show International Edition. It's availiable in lots of countries, I know that it's on Free to Air TV in the UK, on MoreFour.

Re:A Series of Tubes....

[redcane]

And while it is perhaps 10% better suited to international viewers, there is 20% as much of it, thus leading to a 22% goodness level compared to watching the dubiously legal download version.

Who didn't see this coming

[CrazyJim1]

You need to make deals with copywright holders to show/sell their product online. The hard part is negotiating deals with everyone, not just having a site that supports video.

Re:Who didn't see this coming

[Baseclass]

I'm so sick of these whiny megacorps complaining about youtube and fan sites infringing on their copyrights.
Don't they realize that this will only generate interest in their product? If anything they should be paying youtube for advertising.

Re:Who didn't see this coming

[deevnil]

What about comedycentral's elite guerilla marketing campaign..

In a post 9/11 world, who needs to pay for advertising anymore?

Re:Who didn't see this coming

[MaximvsG]

I agree. If they made a deal with Viacom, it would open the flood gates for all the other copyright holders. It would be impossible to negotiate all the deals.

Bad for Viacom

[ZachPruckowski]

Honestly, the reason I watch the Colbert Report is Youtube. If I hadn't seen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I might not watch the show. I mean, they should complain about full episodes, but if there's 3 minutes of Colbert or Stewart on there, it's just advertising to watch those shows.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Comedy Central bitch @ Youtube, and then back down when the realized that Youtube was free advertising?

Re:Bad for Viacom

[ZachPruckowski]

Viacom IS Comedy Central. But you're right that lots of Comedy Central people seem to be savvy to this. When Colbert jested that Youtube owed him $400 million or whatever, he meant the opposite.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[eln]

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.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[loganrapp]

And this is where I find a light at the end of the tunnel with YouTube.

If the big companies get their share of revenue (and as it seems like we're moving more toward uploaders also getting a piece), we can keep along with the chaotic freedom that YT is so well known for.

Most of it's crap, but the diamonds in the rough are priceless.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[recharged95]

Doesn't matter--regardless if you discovered Colbert on YouTube, you would have discovered him sooner of later.

With our information wants to be free mentality, good, quality content will always be discovered and exploited--you would have discovered it elsewhere. It's just that free services for ads forces us to consume [content] faster than before. As for advertising flat out, it's a chicken-n-egg issue.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[ZachPruckowski]

Doesn't matter--regardless if you discovered Colbert on YouTube, you would have discovered him sooner of later.

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

[modecx]

But they don't stop to think: "Hey, someone liked this part of this program enough to go through the effort of editing our clip, and uploading the clip to let other people watch. His time wasn't free, and he deemed that our product had enough value that other people should also enjoy it. We aught to let those other people watch it, so they will be more inclined to watch our show live when they see it on their cable box, and those eyes will see our ads, too!"

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

[Cylix]

Not so oddly enough, I happened to run into a clip of something I've never seen before. It was apparently, a clip from Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

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

[rifter]

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

[Tony Hoyle]

regardless if you discovered Colbert on YouTube, you would have discovered him sooner of later.

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.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[Oligonicella]

No, it's not just advertising, it's infringement. Your opinion is totally irrelevant in this, as is mine. The opinion of the copyright owner is the only one that matters when it comes to distribution.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[TapeCutter]

If Viacom hold out too long they may eventually find they are not that "special", youtube has divided some of the big media players, only a matter of time until it conqueres them.

Re:Bad for Viacom

[sabernet]

At least Viacom still makes the clips from every episode available at ifilm.com

But I do agree this will probably hurt them.

Since i know people are thinking it...

[TubeSteak]

...part of me wants to say "fuck 'em"
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...

[vistic]

Really the only way these sites that allow user uploads to not ever violate any copyrights is to just shut down completely.

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...

[rifter]

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...

[Oligonicella]

True, they cannot prevent uploading, but they could provide copyright owners with the names of the uploaders. This would allow them to direct their attentions to the actual culprits.

Do you also think the little guy should just "shut up for the good" when his content is illegally uploaded?

Drop them

[Zonekeeper]

Google should use the enormous power it wields. Tell Viacom they are being dropped immediately from any search results. Anything that references them or leads to any of their sites or properties, are effectively GONE. That's what I'd do, and Viacom would have no recourse, no legal action. Google doesn't HAVE to return search results for them. Then we'd find out how fast the fat little corporate piggies would squeal when the traffic and subsequent dollars they get from having visitors find them for whatever the myriad of reasons that they would be being searched for. Of course, Google won't do this, because, well, they're corporate screws now too. Sure would be nice though.

Re:Drop them

[Jehosephat2k]

Mod Parent up.

Re:Drop them

[anzev]

You do realize that this is, what is effectively known as monopoly practice and what most of Slashdot would expect from companies like Microsoft, bot not Google. In any case, abusing power in one field to gain momentum (make a point) in another is monopoloy practice. So no, Google will not do that if they have anything in their heads.

Re:Drop them

[toddestan]

I don't think so. That would pretty much conflict with "Do No Evil", even if it is Viacom.

Re:Drop them

[Simetrical]

I'm not sure if that's legal under antitrust law, but even if it is, they can't do this kind of thing regularly, for the simple reason that it reduces the quality of their search results. If I routinely couldn't find an official page for a movie or whatnot using Google just because they had a tiff with the movie's publisher, you know what, I'd probably use some other search engine. Google isn't about to compromise its most important product for a side show. And then there's public image, too.

Viacom has rights

[alshithead]

Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights. Viacom is operating from a position of having the law behind them. Because of that, they get to dictate terms. If they don't like the offer they can tell YouTube to fuck off and die. Maybe the folks uploading the content are ultimately at fault for the copyright violations but YouTube has the responsibility for removing that material at Viacom's demand. Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

Re:Viacom has rights

[Sancho]

Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one. Viacom can't say, "Please remove all Daily Show content," or, "Please remove all of our content." It just doesn't work that way.

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

[SocratesJedi]

Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?
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?

Re:Viacom has rights

[alshithead]

"Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one."

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a shitty low-res copy of my content which is acting as highly effective viral marketing for my actual content, and is being hosted and distributed at no cost to me? Damn, that sounds horrible.

Re:Viacom has rights

[alshithead]

Whoa there Socrates!!!

"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:Viacom has rights

[slughead]

Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights.

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! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!

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

[alshithead]

"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! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!
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! ...thanks dude/ette. I think we're singing the same song. Let's copyright it and sue the fuckers who steal it! Thanks for your insightful irony and sarcasm. :)

Re:Viacom has rights

[zakezuke]

Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

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" 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

[alshithead]

"Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

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

[zakezuke]

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.

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

[alshithead]

"But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising."

    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

[zakezuke]

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!"

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. 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
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

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 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 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

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

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, as they say, all publicity is good publicity.

Perhaps Viacom really doesn't care as much as they say they do. Maybe they're trying to drum up publicity for Viacom videos on GooTube.

Re:Viacom has rights

[Oligonicella]

Funny how it always seems to be the copyright holder that's considered the dick and not those illegally hosting/posting illegal content some people want for free.

Re:Viacom has rights

[eboot]

And we have to continue uploading it, because costing those two companies the money neccessary to monitor and remove content is hilarious and a point of civic pride for those on the internet.

Re:Viacom has rights

[SocratesJedi]

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...
That's not what I said at all; I'm not advocating piracy. My point is that their content should be regarded with less value than content which is freely given. The value derived from expression is inherent and those who demand payment from me for me to hear their expression probably don't have something very important to say.

Re:Viacom has rights

[hublan]

The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal.

Guess they should have checked for leaks before they purchased a defective law from US Congress Inc. Maybe they should ask for a refund.

Dear Viacom

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Our business model is to host content made by others and become fabulously wealthy. If you don't allow us to freely show the material you've paid for our bottom line will be negatively impacted. Please reconsider, for at least as long as it takes to sell our Google stock.

Sincerely,

YouTube

Re:Dear Viacom

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Youtube,

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

[John Nowak]

Why the hell is this modded insightful?

Re:Dear Viacom

[BrynM]

To all Affected Parties,

Have at it. We'll be right by your side when you (WILL!) need us.

Gleefully awaiting our retainer,
The Lawyers

Re:Dear Viacom

[mgiuca]

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.

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.

Re:Dear Viacom

[kjart]

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.

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

[Dogtanian]

Grandparent: 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.

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.

Re:Dear Viacom

[Oligonicella]

So then, you would favor a return to a non-electronic medium? No? Then provide legal coverage for the content producers and quit the lame cannard that the media dictates whether the owner has rights or not.

It is unbecoming to whine because an access to 'free' illegal material is made to dry up.

Viacom...

[no reason to be here]

fucking it up for the rest of us since 1971 (or 2005, depending on how you want to judge these things).

Rutube?

[Sax Maniac]

If allofmp3 is a guide, maybe we need rutube.ru. Eh, dot com. Eh, dot whatever.

Re:Rutube?

[Falladir]

I wonder if allofmp3 could be replaced by a competitor that offers it all for free (up to navigation through some ads). That would be nice.

Google vs. Viacom...

[dexomn]

...Cagematch to the death! Two shall enter, one will leave!

Re:Google vs. Viacom...

[guabah]

And the winner picks his prize from... the wheel

Dire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. That wonderful piece of legislation the Congresses (is that like the Internets?) gave the corporations lets copyright content go right up on the web liability-free so long as it is taken down upon reception of specific notice of what infringing content to remove. YouTube complies with these requests like gangbusters (very well). Not to worry -- if Viacom does not like the free advertising, that is their loss. YouTube is a joy of time wasting (just like real TV!) without the copyrighted content of Viacom. I like the stuff made by real people (like you or me) better than the stuff made by corporations anyways. It is fun to sort the wheat out from the chaff. And to see what is essentially a new medium for people to express themselves develop.

Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show

[kelv]

With about 10 lines of perl you can rip down all of The Daily Show clips from the akamai servers

Re:Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show

[DogDude]

Rumor has it that all of the major bit torrent sites have all of the Daily Shows soon after they are aired, complete and ad-free. But, that's just a rumor I heard...

Re:Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show

[Locomorto]

Heck, with 11 lines of Perl, you could save the world!

Re:Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show

[jvs]

Only after you've saved the Cheer Leader!

Google usually publishes DMCA complaints

[AndroidCat]

I wonder if the complaint will ever show up in the Chilling Effects clearinghouse list?

Could've been worse

[ChromeAeonium]

At least they didn't go Disney on YouTube and demand X dollars per every ten seconds of clip on the site.

'Dire Precedent' ?

[ScentCone]

Right, because never before have we confronted a case where one party is looking to make easy money off of another party's work without permission under the guise of being hip rebels. Puh-leeease.

Re:'Dire Precedent' ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this is Slashdot. Content creators are the bad guys. Content leechers are the heroes. HTH.

No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[ConfusedSelfHating]

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

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content. Until the RIAA/MPAA copyrights their faces

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

[drix]

You don't even have to really look. Colbert Report and Daily Show via RSS, downloaded automatically in the middle of the night and ready hot and steaming when I wake up each morning. Ta-da!

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[whoever57]

This move helps keep YouTube pure. Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content.

Until tattoo artists start asserting their copyrights against people who post pictures of themselves including said tattoos!

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[KKlaus]

Actually there is a more important feature of youtube that makes it attractive piracy-wise. It's completely anonymous, so you don't have to worry about getting a DMCA letter from your ISP. Having gotten said letter from a BT download (I also noticed Jerry from PA got one :D) let me tell you this is a fairly significant benefit. Youtube is pretty useless in many regards, but in terms of Comedy Central content (which is so widely available on it), it is piracy done right.

None of this of course has anything to do with whether Youtube is hurting Viacom's bottom line, which I suspect it is not. Catching the best of Colbert and Jon is good advertisement.

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[Oligonicella]

Funny, but inaccurate. The tattoo belongs to the person who paid the tatter. The tattoo is a piece of art created for the express purpose of allowing the owner to show it. My son's a tatter.

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[Hatta]

It will only stop piracy committed by the very lazy or very stupid.

So what you're saying is, it will stop a lot of piracy.

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent

[whoever57]

Funny, but inaccurate. The tattoo belongs to the person who paid the tatter. The tattoo is a piece of art created for the express purpose of allowing the owner to show it.

I don't think you quite understand my point. Imagine that you buy a painting -- yes, you can show it to people, but this does not give you the right to make copies of it. Copyright would still be owned by the copyright holder unless there was a transfer in writing of the copyright. Posting a photo of the picture on the web surely violates the original artist's copyright.

I believe that a tattoo would be the same -- if the image is one that the artist has created (and not copied from somewhere else), then the artist still owns the copyright and the person with the tattoo has no right to make copies.

They better shape up

[wardk]

or google will buy them and even worse refuse to deploy golden parachutes to the terminated executive team

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free?

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking it up for the rest of us since 1971

Yeah, but you want to fuck it up for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? You think those guys and their staffs should work for free to keep you entertained?

Re:Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free?

[no reason to be here]

Yeah, but you want to fuck it up for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? You think those guys and their staffs should work for free to keep you entertained?

No, but i also wasn't aware that entire episodes were being posted on YouTube. Wait, they're not. a 3 minute clip of a show isn't going to hurt Viacom's bottom line any more than someone skipping the commercials on their TiVo.

Re:Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free?

[Anonymous Coward]

no reason to be here (todd.ferguson@gmail.com) wrote: Wait, they're not. a 3 minute clip of a show isn't going to hurt Viacom's bottom line any more than someone skipping the commercials on their TiVo.

Really?

A search of "Daily Show" on You Tube ( "http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Daily +Show") reveals

Bill Gates on the Daily Show 09:25 minutes
Barack Obama on Daily Show 06:40 minutes
Daily Show weighed in on FOX's Obama smear 04:02 minutes
Social Networking 06:01 minutes
The Problem with E-voting machines. 06:52 minutes
Matt Couch (WM 1997) on The Daily Show 04:30 minutes
TDS Analyzes Bush's Escalation Speech - Part 1 of 2 09:26 minutes
Sen. Edwards on the Daily Show, 11-14-06 (Complete interview.) 06:40 minutes
The Daily Show - Star Trek Theory 04:35 minutes

Looks like entire bits are posted up there.

You don't.

[BasilBrush]

Actually you don't. The DMCA says that the user that upload the videos are the ones who may be breaching copyright. Online Service Providers such as YouTube have safe harbour from copyright liability provided that they remove content if and when they receive a take down notice from the copyright holder. What YouTube are doing is perfectly legal as it is.

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.

[jkabbe]

But, honestly - what does the DMCA have to do with this anyway? This is a plain old copyright case (no measures taken to secure content on tv).

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

The other side is that they have to make a real effort. The way they are currently set up is just lip service to the requirements. Don't be surprised if Google gets clubbed heavily for this in the future. After being told to remove a clip, if Google let's me just reupload the same clip they aren't really living up to the requirements that give them a safe harbor from liability.

Re:You don't.

[Wordsmith]

The DMCA is about more than the anti-circumvention clause. It also lays out a framework for how to get your copywritten material removed from (allegedly) infringing sites or distribution points, and the conditions service providers must adhere to when notified of (alleged) infringement.

Re:You don't.

[Daffy Duck]

DMCA covers a number of different sections of Title 17 of the US Code. Safe Harbor for ISPs is covered under section 512. The part you're thinking of is the anti-circumvention provision of section 1201.

Re:You don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's copyRIGHTED, not copyWRITTEN. "Copyright", not "copywrite".

Re:You don't.

[nebaz]

There are tens of thousands of videos on the site. How is Google supposed to police them all? Removing existing clips is about the best they can do, and maybe banning a user who uploaded copyrighted content, to address your reupload thing. I suppose they could filter certain titles like 'Daily Show' but then the uploader could use 'Daily_show' instead. It'd be pretty hard to keep it all off, without a full time staff of video reviewers.

Re:You don't.

[iminplaya]

DMCA is copyright on steroids...No wait. DMCA is copyright with syphilis...rabies?...dysentery. Haemorrhoids. Worms. Fleas. Crabs!

Re:You don't.

[MarkvW]

Your opinion about the DMCA is only your opinion. Other reasonable, contrary, opinions exists. We can only see how the courts (and Congress) handle this subject matter. Google doesn't want to bet its company on a fragile opinion that the DMCA protects their behavior.

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

That is Google's problem, not the content producers'. Google doesn't have a right to use whatever half assed business model someone comes up with. If there are technical challenges that make it hard, well that's why people with good ideas make the big bucks. If Google can't solve it then who ever does should get the money and fuck Google for not being able to figure it out. But to say "oh, they should be allowed to profit from massive copyright infringement because it's too hard/too expensive to moderate it" is bullshit.

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.

Re:You don't.

[DrEldarion]

The fault does not lie with Google. They are doing nothing more than providing a service where people can upload video. Are you going to blame the ISPs next because they facilitate copyright infringement, too, by allowing people to upload that material in the first place? Perhaps the people who programmed Bittorrent, too, since people use that for piracy? And the computer manufacturers, without which none of this would happen? Where does the blame chain end?

The users who upload copyrighted material are the ONLY ones at fault. That's it. There is nothing besides that.

To use your own analogies, Ford sells cars, but is in no way responsible for what their owners do with them. SmithKlein sells drugs, but isn't responsible if people OD on them.

Just because people abuse a system doesn't make it the system owners fault.

Re:You don't.

[Tony Hoyle]

The fault does not lie with Google. They are doing nothing more than providing a service where people can upload video.

I recall Napster tried that defence. Didn't work very well.

Re:You don't.

[rufus t firefly]

The fault does not lie with Google. They are doing nothing more than providing a service where people can upload video.
I recall Napster tried that defence. Didn't work very well.

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.

[Kijori]

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act has a few things to say about copyright, strangely enough. In this case, it provides safe harbour for providers if their users upload infringing files, as long as they remove the copyrighted files when they receive a request.

Re:You don't.

[andy_t_roo]

youtube also provides a way to remove infringing material from the website, something which was not able to be done with the napster network, so in some ways the only way to 'remove' items from the napster network was to sue it out of existance

Re:You don't.

[Oligonicella]

So, a publisher is not responsible for publishing another author's work under a new 'author' name? Bullshit. The whole point of 'Tube was to allow people to upload ANY content ANONYMOUSLY. How does one not foresee the inclusion of copyrighted material? They initially didn't give a crap, so now they reap. Tuff tit.

Re:You don't.

[Penguinoflight]

That's simple copyright law. The DMCA says that whoever hosts or links to a infringing material is also breaking the law. That's why everyone got hyped about it being illegal according to the first amendment and such.

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.

[LO0G]

AIUI, One of the other requirements of safe harbors is that they make no profit off of the content they host. Last I heard it, YouTube had advertisements on the same pages as the videos they host, which makes their claim of being a safe harbor somewhat suspect.

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

Sorry, but you haven't read the DMCA. The C stands for copyright. You can't just apply your personal interpretation of the older copyright act without taking the DMCA into consideration. It is the latest copyright law.

YouTube don't have to avoid making a system that can be abused by users for posting copyrighted content. As an OSP, they have safe harbour from prosecution provided they remove any copyright content when the copyright holder issues a take down notice. They are not responsible for policing the copyright of content beyond that.

They don't need to "give a crap", and it isn't "Tuff tit".

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

Because Napster failed to qualify for the safe harbour defence. They had no system for taking down content when issued with a take down notice, nor for terminating the account of a persistent offender.

YouTube does qualify for safe harbour on these two grounds. Not only are the facilities there, they have shown themselves to do their duty in applying them.

Re:You don't.

[drsquare]

That's Google's problem. Maybe they shouldn't just allow all and sundry to upload content, then put it up for public download without vetting it. If I had a website and allowed people to upload random pictures, and it ended up full of child porn, you can bet the police would be round my house.

Personally I don't see how a grainy five minutes clip of a TV show is going to damage it. If it's any good it'll make more people watch it, and if it's bad then it'll save people wasting their time watching it. It's bittorrent and newsgroups that is the real problem.

Re:You don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an opinion. The safe harbor provisions are quite explicit.

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

They don't qualify. "Why?" you ask. Because when Joe Content sends them a notice that they are distributing his content, they want a specific link, eg. hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....ThisIsFUNN YY!!!!!!!!!!!!!.video and Google removes that link. However someone, possibly the same person, reuploads it as hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....THISISFUNN Y!.video. And they make the argument that they should be protected even though the content keeps coming back. Sorry, no soup for Google.

Try this thought experiment. Someone gets your personal information, name, ssn, address, bank account numbers, pin numbers, and distributes is as a word document called BasilBrushInfo.doc on the internet. You see that and ask them to stop. So they go ahead and remove BasilBrushInfo.doc, but the original source supplies them with the exact same content in a text file called basilbrushdata.txt. So you ask them to stop making that available and they cooperate. Then someone uploads a screenshot of the same data displayed in Word as a GIF named bbrushnumbers.gif. And so on. Do you think that they're obeying the law? (For those who want to argue that it's different because it's violation of privacy laws, then substitute a short story you wrote, or a video of you stroking your hard cock that you sent to your girlfriend, or your secret business plan for making a million dollars, or a video of you rapping and pretending to be jay-z, or video of you naked with a candle up your ass and your frat letters painted on your chest.)

Google encourages people to upload video. They've have datacenters, bandwidth, support staff, etc. to make it possible. They put a line in their TOS that says "don't upload material that infringes copyright." However, they don't police the content and take down stuff that was clearly not uploaded by the rights owner. They place ads (ie. make money) on pages where they serve that content. When rights holders request that it be taken down they only take down specific files. They hold that different encodings of the same content are different and require different notices.

The double standard is pretty enlightening. On one hand people want to be able to make blanket requests "don't distribute my personal information" and have that request apply to any format. On the other hand they want to be able to distribute other people's information and expect unique requests for each and every individual instance of a violation of a piece of content.

Imagine this, what if everybody else acted that way? A factory owner pays for the building, the tools, equipment, the packaging materials, and sells the product but when the products are defective and kill the buyers, they claim that it is the independant, third-party worker who is responsible for flaws in the product. And, oh yeah, they don't have any real mechanism to identify with confidence which worker built which product. But we'll not sell the specific item that killed your spouse, but we may sell an exact duplicate of the same product built by the same worker.

Re:You don't.

[tim90402]

I suppose they could filter certain titles like 'Daily Show' but then the uploader could use 'Daily_show' instead. And who would know to type "Daily_show" to find it? If it is easy for masses of users to find some content, then it is easy for the content owners to find it, and for Google to as well. If it is hard to find, then it is probably not causing much damage to the content owners.

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

No, the DMCA is written in black and white. It's not a matter of opinion.

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

No that ISN'T what the DMCA says. You have't read it. Go read it and look out for the words Safe Harbour.

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

They don't qualify. "Why?" you ask. Because when Joe Content sends them a notice that they are distributing his content, they want a specific link, eg. hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....ThisIsFUNN YY!!!!!!!!!!!!!.video and Google removes that link. However someone, possibly the same person, reuploads it as hyyp://www.youtube.com/JoeOnPolitics....THISISFUNN Y!.video. And they make the argument that they should be protected even though the content keeps coming back. Sorry, no soup for Google.

You're making it up as you go along. If the same person is a persistent offender then YouTube have a duty under the DMCA to block his account. Likewise YouTube have the duty to take down a particular bit of content when they recieve a takedown notice. They don't have any duty to proactively look for copyright infringing content.

Try this thought experiment. Someone gets your personal information, name, ssn, address, bank account numbers, pin numbers, and distributes is as a word document called BasilBrushInfo.doc on the internet. You see that and ask them to stop. So they go ahead and remove BasilBrushInfo.doc, but the original source supplies them with the exact same content in a text file called basilbrushdata.txt. So you ask them to stop making that available and they cooperate. Then someone uploads a screenshot of the same data displayed in Word as a GIF named bbrushnumbers.gif. And so on. Do you think that they're obeying the law?

The pertinent question is who's responsible. The answer is it's the person(s) that uploads it, not the ISP that hosts the website.

Google encourages people to upload video. They've have datacenters, bandwidth, support staff, etc. to make it possible. They put a line in their TOS that says "don't upload material that infringes copyright." However, they don't police the content and take down stuff that was clearly not uploaded by the rights owner.

If there is one thing that you should learn from this debate is it's that YouTube do not have any duty to police their content for infringing material. This was specifically put into the DMCA.

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

AIUI, One of the other requirements of safe harbors is that they make no profit off of the content they host. Last I heard it, YouTube had advertisements on the same pages as the videos they host, which makes their claim of being a safe harbor somewhat suspect.

It has to be profit directly attributable to the infringing content. No, YouTube do not have adverts on the pages where users videos are shown. Only on the front page.

Re:You don't.

[ScrewMaster]

As the Supreme Court said, "Substantial non-infringing uses."

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

As an OSP, they have safe harbour from prosecution provided they remove any copyright content when the copyright holder issues a take down notice.

But that is the point. They don't take it down. They take down specific files, they don't take down protected content.

YouTube don't have to avoid making a system that can be abused by users for posting copyrighted content.

There's a federal appeals court in California that disaggrees with you. Disagrees with you so much that they bankrupted Napster. And in case you don't remember Napster did try to build a system to take down content, but the it was simple enough for users to make minor variations on file names to get around it.

They are not responsible for policing the copyright of content beyond that.

Want to bet? And just to save you from losing this bet, consider this: Just prior to Google's acquisition of YouTube, YouTube was scrambling like crazy to pay out big money to content owners to get licenses for the content they were distributing. It's a flat out recognition that they have a responsibility and liability with respect to copyrighted content.

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

If there is one thing that you should learn from this debate is it's that YouTube do not have any duty to police their content for infringing material. This was specifically put into the DMCA.

Blah blah blah. The ninth circuit court of appeals disagrees. Google disagrees. The content creators disagree. If there is one thing you should learn from this debate it's that you're the only person who thinks that responding to DMCA take down notices are a protection from millions or billions of dollars in damages that Google faces if they don't reach a licensing agreement.

Re:You don't.

[Score Whore]

And, fyi, Google most likely has zero recourse to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA due to failing to meet several requirements. For instance they must "not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing", and must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity".

Re:You don't.

[MarkvW]

Obviously Google does not think so. If the people applying the law to their commercial behavior think that the law is not clear cut, then isn't the law --in fact-- not clear cut?

Re:You don't.

[BasilBrush]

Points 1 and 2 I've already covered on this thread. You are wrong.

Point 3, there obviously are advantages to YouTube being able to carry content from the media companies on an official basis, not least because they won't be forced to take them down, but also because they can advertise along with such officially supplied content. Thus seeking out such agreements does nothing to admit liability on ordinary user uploaded content. Thgere is no liability, they have safe harbout under the DCMA.

Elsewhere you claim that YouTube has adverts on user video pages. I've covered that elsewhere also. They do not have adverts on the pages where user uploaded content plays.

I can see that you are going to be convinced. That for some reason you want to find YouTube guilty of something. But you have no case. YouTube's model is fine, they have safe harbour under the DMCA. By all means have the last word if you want. But you're still wrong.

The takedown is already happening...

[MsGeek]

Lots of content disappeared yesterday. A lot of it was Viacom stuff. I'm fully expecting more of my favorites to come up with "content removed" notices.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you try watching some original content instead of what big media is already pushing at you on TV? That's what the real strength of YouTube is - giving exposure to independent content creators. I hate it when great ideas like this get overrun with people that think they're doing something "useful" by uploading all the same shows that are already on network TV and DVD.

Re:The takedown is already happening...

[u38cg]

I'm not the only one who's noticed this, then? I'm a Dylan fan, and Youtube has been fantastic for discovering loads of rare videos - TV appearances from the sixties and so on - and they're now dissapearing. What's sad is that I own three albums that I had thought weren't any good because I found these videos. Now who's losing money?

Re:The takedown is already happening...

[pla]

Why don't you try watching some original content instead of what big media is already pushing at you on TV? That's what the real strength of YouTube is - giving exposure to independent content creators.

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.

Re:The takedown is already happening...

[Oligonicella]

http://www.toonopedia.com/renstimp.htm

The creators sold it, it wasn't stolen.

Re:The takedown is already happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

Top rated, or most popular would be a decent starting point. Except it's always full of stuff ripped from TV.

Re:The takedown is already happening...

[BannedinBoston]

Yes, and lots of the content that disappeared was not infringing on Viacom. There is no way that Viacom had human beings actually look at the content they complained about. They just ran an automated search, gave the list to their lawyers, and threw the shit into the fan. I am kind of surprised there is not a bigger outburst about this by the free culture community--of which I consider myself to be one. Talk about a chilling effect. I figure that a lot of the folks who had their videos taken down are about 13 years old, and are intimidated by the notices. Hell, I was kind of intimidated, and I'm anything but 13. Viacom was completely irresponsible in using the DMCA complaint process to go after a list of videos that they had to know included many many many false accusations.

Slanting

[Anonymous Coward]

Once it is out there, it isn't "yours" anymore.

I know, legally it still is. But given the modern technological landscape, applying the familiar concepts of ownership to information is a non sequitor. The laws may have made sense once upon a time, but no longer. Now they do more harm than good.

The problem isn't that people duplicate data. The problem is that other people think they shouldn't be allowed to.

Re:Slanting

[ClosedSource]

Well, that's fine if all the future of video holds is watching people like your next door neighbor do silly stuff on the Internet that is equally entertaining as watching him live over the back fence.

Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

Re:Slanting

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

Do you honestly believe that charging per copy is the only way to make money on entertainment programs? You really need to open your eyes. There is a whole new game forming and people who don't know how to play are going to get left far, far behind.

Re:Slanting

[ClosedSource]

Thanks for the fact-free post. Even if I don't "get it" (assuming there's really something to get), I'm not a content producer, so I'm not part of "the game" and thus unworried about being left behind.

Re:Slanting

[DrSkwid]

> Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

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 where to find it

Re:Slanting

[ClosedSource]

I'm sure there's a lot of good 5 min videos out there, but I don't think there's any danger that these short videos are going to take the place of longer professional efforts. And how many of the people making these videos hope to qualify themselves for professional paid work someday. If you take away the hope of making a living, I suspect that the number of submissions would drop dramatically (no pun intended).

Re:Slanting

[zakezuke]

I'm sure there's a lot of good 5 min videos out there, but I don't think there's any danger that these short videos are going to take the place of longer professional efforts

Reality TV has taken top spots in nielsen ratings. Youtube's business model was based on amature videos, i.e. reality streaming. For entertainment it has, for the time being, taken the place of professional efforts.

Re:Slanting

[ClosedSource]

Last time I checked most reality TV shows are longer than 5 mins. Youtube's business model was apparently to get a lot of attention and then sell out to another company for big bucks. I suspect Youtube will be as profitable to Google as AOL was to Time Warner.

Viacom has rights-Barrels,apples,spoiled.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

And everyone's costs rises because the minority have a "fuck you!" attitude.

I thought so, too

[ShaunC]

Viacom has threatened YouTube before, and I remember hearing that the Comedy Central clips had gone back up. Here's the previous coverage from Slashdot,

YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA

YouTube Restores Comedy Central Clips

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.

I like the trolls, but the trolls don't like me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the trolls, but the trolls don't like me.

Viacom is being stupid

[dgun]

Short clips of their programs are just free advertising and add to the popularity of the shows. I can understand wanting to eliminate whole episodes, however.

Re:Viacom is being stupid

[Simetrical]

But there's no reason Viacom shouldn't demand a cut of the ad profits Google's making from short clips of its shows, on top of the advertising. Also, how long until some joker uploads entire shows in two-minute segments?

No more greedy man's BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you thought that button pushing would get you an insightful. Viacom is perfectly within they're rights, which I'm sure pisses off the "content wants to be free" aka "we're too lazy to create our own original content. can we have yours?" crowd.I'm sure it will not stop piracy any more than police will stop all murderers, or permissions on Linux will stop all hacking. However the pirates have no business dragging YouTube into their personal war. If they want content that bad, then they should host it on their own servers.

Re:No more greedy man's BitTorrent

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If they want content that bad, then they should host it on their own servers.

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

[dangitman]

If they want content that bad,

Actually, The Daily Show and other Comedy Central offerings are quite good.

The Essence of YouTube

[popo]

Is unmanaged user uploads.

Did anyone not see a potential problem with this?

They're going to start revenue sharing

[joejoejoejoe]

Google mentioned recently that they will start revenue sharing for content providers, ie posters, on youtube.

If all it takes to get paid is to copy clips off of tv and then post them on youtube, don't you see a problem? What viacom needs to do is ban all viacom content and then post it themselves, and get the revenue.

-Joejoejoejoe

Re:They're going to start revenue sharing

[GreatRunes]

What Google, Youtube and other content aggies need to do is have a dropdown box which lists all the major networks ( oh h___, let's include your local broadcast stations based on your login prefs where possible to give a starving programmer a little work eh? ) and require that every vid uploaded be flagged as either;

• 1) personal, copyright retained
• 2) personal, copyright in the gnu, creative commons, or variant
• 3) public domain AFAIK ( that's what it should say ... exactly!!!)
• 4) belonging to one of the above content providers (or other, pls enter the content provider you think this belongs to.

Then, as soon as the content is flagged as such the Aggie would

• a) start pumping ad content from ThoseNicePeople the content providers.
• b) provide a link to the original content (if the CP involved has one)
• c) discount (not give for free) the click through rate.

As usual, corporate atty's are in the way of social interaction and profit. I cannot understand how these people don't get it; They get free hosting from this deal!!! I mean, hasn't anybody slapped their forehead yet and said DOH!! Come on, you get free hosting, just ask for a little break on the click throughs and a nice way to say yes or no when the request to show the video comes in. Wake up Viacom!! America loves your content and wants to play with it. This is your audience getting excited about your content and creating a buzz about it! Take an aspirin and get some advertising out of it! Peace through superior intelligence, Bro'

The sad thing about YouTube...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing about YouTube is that there are a lot of cool videos that people make themselves for YouTube, but they're bloody impossible to find and YouTube doesn't seem to care as their business model absolutely seems to be making money from illegal uploads. They won't remove illegal uploads with anything short of a DMCA notice. I know because I submitted 50 such videos as a "terms of service" violation only to check two weeks later and find that only 12 had been removed, half with an 'this specific copyright holder forced us to delete this video' message whose only purpose can be to shame a copyright holder for enforcing their rights.

I've seen some wonderful original videos on YouTube but it's also taken weeks of searching to find them and I've only found about ten. The search engine is only good when you know the title of what you are looking for, and that's only true with illegal uploads. The most viewed ranking is useless because people watch videos because they think they might be good much more often than they watch them because they know they are good. The video ratings are useless unless your preferences are exactly the same as an average person. So the result is, even if you want to use YouTube for what it was intended for, it's still a hundred times easier to use it illegally.

The ugly truth

[edwardpickman]

Viacom owns the material and they can do what they want with it. Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it. They may not charge to watch the videos but they use them to create value for the company. Viacom may actually want to leave the clips on Youtube but I'm guessing their lawyers advised that it sets a dangerous president. If they allow the clips they may loose control of the shows themselves. In some ways this is up to the court system and where they draw the line. Viacom can provide them with clips but it gets dicey when some one other than Viacom posts the clips without Viacom's permission. Whoever puts the money into producing the material should control it. If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more.

Re:The ugly truth

[Anonymous Coward]

it sets a dangerous president

So true. We already have a stupid President, don't want a dangerous one now, do we? Oh wait...

Re:The ugly truth

[Lehk228]

youtube must take down the material when presented with a DMCA takedown notice, not whenever some lawyer from viacom gets his panties in a bunch

Re:The ugly truth

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more. Really? Excuse me just a sec.... Hello Egypt? This is Israel. We want our Pyramids back.

the sad part is

[SQLz]

Viacomm is too f*ing stupid to realize they get a massive ratings boost from You Tube. Both Colbert and Stewart not only regularly mention the site, they obviously use it for show content.

huh?

[sTalking_Goat]

Unless I'm mistaken the Daily Show runs for about 20 minutes without the commercials...

Re:huh?

[Oligonicella]

As you're not familiar with copyright, fair use does not mean 'anything short of the full product'. It means providing a snippet which indicates what you're referring to. YouTube is not fair use at all, as there is no surrounding content which needs the snippet in the first place. The length of the copy is not relevant here.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Youtube removes YOU!

Wait, you? Like removes You? You what? Youtube? Man, no wonder communism fell.

The Internet is the problem

[troll -1]

Viacom's action could establish a precedent and have serious consequences for YouTube ...

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 (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

[drix]

The Daily Show is already on BitTorrent within about 2 hours of its East Coast airing. It takes me about a half hour to download, it's a digital satellite rip and when I play it on my television it actually looks better than cable since I don't have digital cable. Ditto the Colbert Report. I'm a cable subscriber but I don't have TiVo and not having to stay up late to watch the episodes, and/or being able to take them on the road with me, makes all the difference. I don't know if what I'm doing is illegal but it's insanely easy and convenient. I certainly don't feel like it's immoral. I have a hard time seeing Viacom or any other corporation being able to put a stop this sort of thing. It certainly isn't working for the music industry. Or should I say didn't.

Re:The Internet is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"If what happened after Napster (as a file-sharing service) was shut-down is any indication..."

Actually.. taking out Napster was incredibly effective. No copyrighted music illegal distribution service has even remotely achieved the same kind of mainstream penetration that Napster had. iTunes stepped up and was able to capitalize on the void created.

Re:The Internet is the problem

[Frosty Piss]

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.

No, you find yourself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because you have no life.

Re:The Internet is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gnutella alone has over 2 million users, between 800,000 to 1 million users are online at any one time, not counting eMule, eDonkey, Freenet, etc.. But if everyone from just gnutella shares one file it makes for a pretty large collection. It's been said many times in the mainstream press that P2P file sharing is at an all time high. Of course their are more internet users now than there were back when napster was p2p.

Do you have stats for the old napster on which you base your comment? It would be interesting to compare.

Legal videos were erroniously taken down as well

[supersat]

It looks like Viacom automated their DMCA complaints, and included several videos in their DMCA notifications that they clearly don't hold the copyright to. One of the affected users also writes a Harvard law blog, and posted about it.

Re:The ugly truth - fair use

[kurt555gs]

Viacom is getting greedy. 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.

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

Gone

[zoltamatron]

Looks like YouTube has responded, and is taking everything down. Not a big surprise

Thank goodness NBC has good sense

[theurge14]

NBC has been using YouTube to their advantage to drum up interest in their shows. Recent clips that come to mind are Lazy Sunday and D*** In a Box from SNL:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NBC

Viacom should be taking notes.

Re:Thank goodness NBC has good sense

[BobSutan]

CBS did this as well. If it wasn't for YouTube I'd never known about Jericho. Its got an interesting premise and is worth checking out despite the imperfections in the show's execution. Looking back at the show's post-catastrophe storyline, it strikes me as a contemporary version of Battlestar Galactica (which is by far the best show on TV these days).

I think they know this quite well.

[mcg1969]

But they also know that the value that YouTube is creating with their service is gigantic. That is: sure, YouTube is sending Viacom some free business---but YouTube has the potential to make far more than that themselves.

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.

PSS (Pretty Simple Solution)

[TheDarkener]

...and it's going to happen, because, well.. we always have.

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

[mrmeval]

I'm pretty sure it's them I can blame carpel tunnel on.

Puh-leeease?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you gay?

What's your going rate for going down btw?

1) No. 2) It's a negotiating tactic.

[Geof]

Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it.

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 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.

Whoever puts the money into producing the material should control it. If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more.

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.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm pretty sure it's them (Viacom) I can blame carpel tunnel on."

Jon Stewart is hot, but not that hot.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

..Viacom tells all their serious fan base to go take a hike! Amazing marketing savvy there!

For whom the bell tolls

[t00le]

Hopefully at some point traditional media catches up with modern technology and the iPod generation.

I for one am disappointed in Viacom's stance and hope the masses show their distaste. At least now I can throw Viacom into the same boat as Clear Channel (Shitty products with repetitive advertising) for alienating their consumers.

I say fuck 'em and I will now tune to something else when I DO have a chance to watch TV. Why would I want to catch-up on something I may have missed when I COULD impact their (Viacom) bottom line and the ever important advertisers (who force feed crappy products made in China down our throats via repetition).

On the other hand...

[Cairnarvon]

ComedyCentral's website now seems to be better about uploading new Daily Show and Colbert Report clips quickly, and they've recently started offering embedding and better clip linking capabilities. So it's not like they're telling fans to just go fuck themselves entirely.

Why doesnt Youtube go the licensing route?

[roamzero]

I mean, I'm sure that it could reach some sort of agreement with the content owners. Keep the old system but in addition have high quality licensed streaming of various shows (full shows, not clips). Ten dollars a month to watch the material, and those that want freebie watching can do so with commercials spliced into the shows. There are tons of variations that could be implemented, so what's in the way?

vlad farted

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one thing I don't want to see on Youtube!!!

Focus please !

[stud9920]

Youtube is not a good place for TV episodes (which I think are legitimate to leak on the internet as 99% of the planet cannot get them from the air). Limited resolution, no easy download.

Focus, fellow pirates. Bittorrent is the place to put TV episodes.

Bank info !! Routing & Account Number

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Petrie

ABA or Bank Routing Number
021200339

Bank Account Number
009517000610

Bank Institution Name
bank of america

Re:1) No. 2) It's a negotiating tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most societies in history have been organized quite differently, with vastly different conceptions of property and ownership. "

Hell, I want to see the same argument when discussing gun ownership , slavery and other relics of the past.

Sure, the concept that it wrong to enslave people is quite modern as well...

copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought one of the (main) reasons why youtube was so popular was the massive amounts of pirated material. Nobody seems to have minded much, when everybody wants to make their own version of youtube for the cash. I wonder how many videos it would actually be, if somebody searched for all the material that isn't quite legal in YouTube. And if all this stuff was stripped, would it pop up in another service and leave youtube eventually empty? Or would the endless amounts of pet hamster-videos draw the audience as usual?

The problem is lobbying, not suing

[siddesu]

The real problem is not the fact that many companies want their copyrights protected within the bounds of the law. That is okay, and even welcome as long as the goal of copyright -- rewarding creativity and fostering more of it -- is achieved by the law.

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.

Slavery and spirit

[Geof]

"Most societies in history have been organized quite differently, with vastly different conceptions of property and ownership. "

Hell, I want to see the same argument when discussing gun ownership , slavery and other relics of the past.

Sure, the concept that it wrong to enslave people is quite modern as well...

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.

Meanwhile on Google-1

[Joebert]

Larry Page: Who the fuck is Viacom ?
Sergey Brin: I dunno. Hey, would you pass me the Grey Poupon ?

Re:Drop them balls

[courseB]

but what would googles end idea be for this? to get more users to search for everything but viacom? balls dont matter, data does, which viacom knows.

Re:I like the trolls, but the trolls don't like me

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously one of us. It's okay. Put those silly thoughts behind you. Slashdot is your oyster, if you step up and troll it for all its worth.

So what?

[Tomis]

Really, so what? It's going to be a pain for YouTube to track down all the offending posts. And I really prefer watching the daily show without commercial interruption. But we somehow managed to get through life before youtube, and even before the internet. We have VCRs and now TiVo, etc. We can already watch this content whenever we want. There are more important things in life anyway.

I used to use tv.yahoo.com to see if there's anything good on TV to watch at the moment. But they screwed that up by switching from a sane HTML table format to a flash-based site and I haven't been able to find a decent replacement. So, on those rare occasions when I want to watch TV, I look at the printed tv guide that comes with the newspaper. Not that hard really, takes the same amount of time as waiting for a website to load.

The more "pirated" content these big corporations get pulled from the mainstream view, the more the mainstream will look to other sources of entertainment. Indie artists and content creators will benefit. Sounds good to me!

Re:So what?

[russ_allegro]

>But they screwed that up by switching from a sane HTML table format to a flash-based site and I haven't been able to find a decent replacement.

It isn't flash, it is AJAX. Yeah the old way was better. You can't even go back anymore and see which episode you missed yesterday to find out when that episode might be on again. Also since it is AJAX most of the channels aren't even loaded till you try to scroll down, so you can't do a simple browser search to auto-scroll down to the channel you are interested in.

Re:The ugly truth - fair use

[Oligonicella]

"There is no such thing as IP OWNERSHIP."

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.

My video was removed unfairly

[Kinetix303]

One of my posted videos, "Cheap Beer in Montréal" was removed based on a Viacom complaint yesterday. The problem with the situation is that I shot the video myself and the only people in it are my friends. There is no Viacom content in it whatsoever. In effect, they have stifled my right to have others access material which holds my own copyright.

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?

Re:Legal videos were erroniously taken down as wel

[zotz]

"A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

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

Uh way to miss the point, poindexter

[Anonymous Coward]

Look.

Let me start off with the idea that Viacom owns the copyright. No doubt. And that as a copyright owner, their rights do indeed allow them to ask Google to pull the clips. There is no doubt they are 100% correct, both legally and morally for doing this.

But do you know why Viacom makes TV shows? I don't sit in the board rooms, so let me guess... they do it to make money. No secret there. And the way they make a lot of money is to make the show freely available to anyone who wants it, and then insert advertisements. There's no trick to capturing it with my Tivo, my DVD recorder, or my VHS recorder. All are technical means to do so. And people take advantage of them.

So it does strike me a bit odd that Viacom says "World, here, take this show for free, watch it to your heart's content", but gets upset when someone else does this? It strikes me as silly. And so that can't be the reason. I mean, Viacom is run by a bunch of asshats, but they're not completely retarded. My guess is that Viacom knows this is, over the long haul, good for them to be exposed like this in a new format. But they're trying to figure out how to make money from it.

So, putting 2 and 2 together, my guess is Viacom is looking for a cut of the revenue from google for each video "download", but that the asking price is too high for Google. In other words, Google might make 10 cents in advertising from each video, but Viacom is asking for 50 cents in money for each download. Google is saying no, so Viacom is saying "No Downloads".

The point is, this is a dispute over price, not a dispute over some vague notions of fairness and artistic integrity. The world doesn't work that way.

Same old arguments.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

That's not what's happenning here and you know it. If your theatre had the same content as your competitors but you didn't pay for it, but did charge your customers to see it. That would be closer to what's happenning here, and it would be wrong, legal, and otherwise.

"The pernicious idea that copyright confers an exclusive right to profits (both direct and indirect) is at variance with almost all other market activity."

No it confers upon the holder the right to control copies. Profit is secondary. Second Ford, GM, Honda and others can create vehicles, HOWEVER Honda can't create an exact copy of a Ford and sell it. Ford has an exclusive to their vehicles.

"Where on earth does this come from? Market economies and the labor theory of value are a modern phenomena. "

I'm not the one you're replying to but the idea of a person having a right to the fruits of their labours existed since man formed societies. About as long as the idea that one person should be entitled to the fruits of others.

"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."

If that was true then Viacom could simply cut out the middleman.

Re:Same old arguments.

[Geof]

the idea of a person having a right to the fruits of their labours existed since man formed societies. About as long as the idea that one person should be entitled to the fruits of others.

We have no way of knowing what ideas existed in the first societies. Since human beings have always existed in socities, that's going back a very long way. Certainly very few (no?) pre-modern socities were based on the right you describe. So although your statement is weaker than the one I replied to, it is still a huge claim - have you any evidence?

The concept of "rights", however, the idea that value is a product of labor, and the use of this as a theoretical jutsification for a certain kind of society is is a modern liberal phenomenon. It has more in common with Marx than Plato - indeed it was the basis for Marx's critique of capitalism.

it [copyright] confers upon the holder the right to control copies. Profit is secondary

Profit and encouraging creation, not the codification of some kind of pre-existing or "natural" property right, is at the heart of copyright law. The 1709 Statute of Anne, the first modern copyright law, lays out as its objective the financial protection of authors and publishers and the encouragement of authorship:

Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books,and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books . . .

Honda can't create an exact copy of a Ford and sell it.

I can see numerous examples of me-too products. Where cloning physical products is prohibited by law, it has nothing to do with copyright (possibly industrial design, patent, or trademark law, or the protection of trade secrets - e.g. the Coke formula). They would be entirely unecessary in this case: Ford could not build its brand on the basis of copying Honda.

If your theatre had the same content as your competitors but you didn't pay for it, but did charge your customers to see it. That would be closer to what's happenning here, and it would be wrong, legal, and otherwise.

That's sloppy reasoning. First, it misses the distinction that YouTube is making an indirect profit from the videos users upload - just as the restaurant is making an indirect profit from the cinema. At what point is indirect profit covered by copyright? The post to which I replied suggested that all profit - direct and indirect - was due to the copyright holder. Second, YouTube is creating much of the value, its users are creating more - but the right to one's labor is not extended to them. Third - and I suspect this was not your intent, but it is all too common in debates around copyright - your statement vastly overgeneralizes. Fair use, public domain content, and open content are some of the reasons why the activity you describe may be completely proper.

As for being "wrong", as I have tried to illustrate, the idea that ideas can be owned is recent and particular to certain societies. At many times and in many places (and for many ideas even in our society), this has not been the case. We as a society define the boundaries of what is acceptable or not. Partly this is done through law, but many of laws do not reflect social understandings of right and wrong. Most importantly, the bounds of property, of ideas, of copyright can be changed. They have changed recently - much for the w

Re:Same old arguments.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They have changed recently - much for the worse in my opinion (both your post and the previous one reflect that change) - and will continue to change."

A big hint to all of "you must be new here?" posters. When someone calls you a shill, the discussion is over.

Humanity is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"The real problem here is that the Internet is such an effective and efficient distribution system."

Shame this "efficient" sytem can't create original content with equal voracity.

No the REAL problem is that we (meaning humanity in general) have no respect for each other. Technology is simply a magnifier for this behaviour. Humanity is like children with guns, with not the wisdom to use them properly.

Perplexing

[Eravnrekaree]

While I suppose they may be concerned about people using this instead of subscribing to pay networks, I am skeptical about viacom losing money over having material on youtube that is avialable over its networks. Are they trying to censor this materual from the internet instead? Perhaps Viacom was really concerned about money, they would, it seems instead demand that the videos remained avialable on youtube, but instead the advertising remain intact. Although, I can see why they would want to keep the material from pay networks off Google, for fear it may keep people from subscribing to the pay networks, but I am skeptical this is happening, perhaps them calling so much attention to it perhaps is making it worse by putting the idea into peoples minds that they can use youtube for this purpose. Part of the problem, I think is the reluctance for them to provide their materials available online from viacom services legitimately through a pay download service (perhaps included at no additional cost with a subscription to the cable networks). Obviously the demand is there, and if viacom isnt going to fill the need, people will find other ways to do it. I think one solution for Viacom on this would be to provide a subscription service including with the cable network subscription, or as an option seperately, whereby all of its videos are avialable online for download.

Re:Perplexing

[cdrguru]

You need to understand how advertising is bought, sold and viewed.

They sell it based on ratings, which has nothing to do with the content being viewed elsewhere that isn't tracked by the ratings service.

The ads on cable are often substituted by the cable company, who is both buying and selling ad space. This is how you get local advertising on cable channels.

They expect it will be timely, so running the ad for the local car dealer isn't so great when viewed elsewhere in the country and a week after the special being advertised ended.

No way is it going to matter if the advertising is in the content or not.

advertising

[kholburn]

They used to say pay TV, cable TV had no ads - it's not true now is it, so now you pay for it - pay TV, cable TV and get ads. You pay for the ads. When I go to the cinema I pay AU$26 and I have to sit through ads. Advertising is purely opportunistic. The argument that advertising pays for TV is not true. There are other business models, I don't have to support a business model based on opportunism.

In addition some of the videos they've put take-down notices on are private videos, nothing to do with Viacom. How do they justify that?

Viacom take-down for clips not owned by viacom

[kholburn]

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2007/02/02/the-vi acom-international-copyright-dmca-debacle-about-yo utube-videos-should-we-counter-sue/

How does the DMCA apply?

[sacrilicious]

YouTube has acknowledged receiving a DMCA request from Viacom

Does the DMCA apply here, as opposed to good old copyright law? The only part of the DMCA that I've been told about is the part prohibiting the circumention of encryption on copyrighted works... is youtube allegedly guilty of such, or is there another part of the DMCA that I haven't picked up on?

Work for hire sucks...

[MsGeek]

Yes, I am well-aware that in order for the show to be made, John K. had to sign his rights away to Ren Hoek, Stimpson J. Cat, Jasper the Pup, The Dogcatcher and a few other characters which had their origins in the R&S pilot "Big House Blues." Also any characters created during the run of R&S would have to also be ceded to Viacom International. Like Mr. Horse, for example. George Liquor was an exception: because he was never used by name in any of the episodes, rights to him ended up with John K. and Spumco. This is why The Goddamn George Liquor Show webcartoon was able to be made after the takeover of R&S.

Yes, Viacom International was within their LEGAL RIGHTS under US COPYRIGHT LAW. However, moral rights is a completely different story. In Europe, where "droit moral" is a part of copyright law, Viacom would not have been able to do what they did. Under European Union copyright law, the characters would have been LICENSED to Viacom for a given period of time. Then after that period of time, rights would revert back to John K. and Spumco.

In America, you need to have a precedent for your work in order to avoid the "work for hire" trap. This is how, for instance, Sam Kieth was able to keep his rights to The Maxx even though an MTV Oddities miniseries was done from the comic. Since he nailed down his rights to the characters because they initially appeared in a comic book for a company that acknowledges creator's rights (Image Comics) he was able to maintain ownership.

This is also why The Tick appeared first in an animated TV series then in a live-action sitcom. Ben Edlund owns The Tick, Arthur, Chairface Chippendale and other characters that have appeared in his comics. However, American Maid and Die Fliedermaus were characters created for the animated series, so they are now owned by Disney after 10 years of legal wrangling. When the live action sitcom was made, Die Fliedermaus had to be rechristened Bat Manuel, complete with Latin Lover accent. I was never a fan of the live action series so I don't know what they called American Maid in the sitcom. She appeared, but with a different name and costume but the same attitude.

So the moral to all this is, if you are a creator of animated content, put out your characters in a comic book or some other medium (webcartoon?) first. Establish your rights to the characters. Then you can negotiate with a stronger hand, and maintain more control over your creation. It might mean that you can't participate in "new talent searches" conducted by networks like Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, but in the long run you'll be better off.

Viacom International was well within their rights to do what they did. However, what they did was ethically wrong, IMHO. And I know plenty of people, in and out of the industry, who still agree with me on this score.

A chain of dominoes

[deusdiabolus]

1. YouTube removes all of Viacom's copyrighted content. 2. Ratings for all of Viacom's programming "mysteriously" drop. 3. Viacom does research to determine why; ratings continue to drop. 4. Viacom attempts to create an Internet portal. Everything is pay-per-view and non-embeddable. 5. Viacom's ratings continue to drop "inexplicably"; Viacom sues Tivo....

Re:A chain of dominoes

[cdrguru]

If I can watch it on YouTube, why would it affect Viacom's ratings? I'd never watch their commercial-ridden filth. I would exclusively watch edited content with the commercials either removed or parodied.

For Viacom, it is life or death. If their content is available WITHOUT commercials, why would you ever, ever subject yourself to commercials? Also, you get the benefit from others filtering out the stuff that isn't any good that you might watch blindly without knowing.

Then, why would anyone pay to advertise on a Viacom outlet, knowing all the good stuff is available elsewhere.

So, as soon as the over-40ish people die off nobody is watching TV with commercials.

It's all about Greed.

[Dmpstrdvr]

Remember when AOL was the biggist portal - and Viacom thought they could monetize that by refusing to let AOL customers visit MTV.com? Viacom threatened to block all AOL customers, unless AOL paid Viacom an "access fee" to allow AOL customers in. Viacom just wants all of the money. They want all of thier content to be "pay per view". They know it would be stupid to keep thier content off YouTube. They're just framing the negotions.

No!!!!!

[advs89]

Please don't take away my low-resolution, choppy, stretched and altered, artifact-filled, 320x240px ripped network television videos!!!

But seriously, while I understand the purpose behind the article, let me know when people start taking things off stage6! (stage6.divx.com, which my Creative Zen Vision:M supports without having to use keepvid to rip and without having to transcode to an acceptable format)

DMCA is irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does this have to do with dailymotion et al?

Viacom?

[hisstory student]

Viacom? Who do they think they are, anyway? They should just stick to making erectal disfunction medication.

Actually...

[Animaether]

...given that the shows are online minutes after they are broadcast, I have zero interest in watching it live.. what, being interrupted with the ads all the time and all.

Whoops. I guess I'm a reason for them to have the videos removed.

Re:Actually...

[modecx]

Whoops. I guess I'm a reason for them to have the videos removed.

You only gave them a reason to have the videos delayed.

Google is supposed to...

[Animaether]

Note: supposed to, not required by law...

1. take down a video when a copyright holder asks them to
2. slap the user who uploaded it around a bit
3. make sure that the same exact video can't be uploaded again
4. at least attempt to make sure that the same video, but say at a different resolution, slightly different compression, whatever... can't be uploaded again.

As it is now, videos are automatically placed on YouTube.. this is a zero effort issue. However, to have it removed, you have to fill in their forms, you have to contact them directly in case they're not being very responsive. Then 2 hours later, you get to do it all over again because the user simply re-uploaded it - and 2 hours later again because another user uploaded it, and 4 hours later again because somebody uploaded a slightly different version of it.

If Google can't 'police them' where appropriate, then Google should not be in the business of free-for-all video uploads while claiming that they can.

insightful because...

[Animaether]

...the moderators are on crack and think that if a company makes a product that is easy to copy (and most intangible things are), then they shouldn't complain when users do exactly that. Put differently.. they are confusing the fact that it -is- easy to copy with the company having the -intent- of having users copy it. There is no such intent - so yes, they are completely right to complain when people do so. Whether that is wise or not is a completely different discussion.

Non-infringing videos caught up in the sweep

[BannedinBoston]

Viacom forced YouTube to take down 100,000 videos today, and to send out tens of thousands of DMCA Complaint notices. Viacom made the list of "infringing videos." How did they make it? I bet they used spiders. The spiders were not as sophisticated as one might hope. I suspect that thousands of truly innocent videos are now blocked on YouTube. This happened to me yesterday. ahref=http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2007/02/02/ 100000-mistakes-by-viacom/rel=url2html-27817http:/ /blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2007/02/02/100000-mista kes-by-viacom/> I received a DMCA Complaint for a genuine personal video that is certainly not infringing on Viacom. Here is the complaint. ahref=http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2007/02/02/ viacom-owns-this-the-original-of-this-video-was-ta ken-down-from-youtube-at-viacoms-request/rel=url2h tml-27817http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2007/02/ 02/viacom-owns-this-the-original-of-this-video-was -taken-down-from-youtube-at-viacoms-request/> Here is the video, now hosted at Google Video. Let me know what you think! John Palfrey of the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School blogged about my situation. ahref=http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2007/02 /02/viacoms-cease-and-desist-letters-for-a-home-vi deo/rel=url2html-27817http://blogs.law.harvard.edu /palfrey/2007/02/02/viacoms-cease-and-desist-lette rs-for-a-home-video/> He received a very nice email from a man named Michael Fricklas of Viacom. Mr. Fricklas apologized for the mistake, and said that it had already been corrected. Hmmm. When I last checked, which was just a minute ago, the video was blocked. How many Slashdot folks have the same problem? How many "mistakes" were made? Please let us know. Was I the only one???? Maybe! PS There is an online center for sharing complaints if you think you are an innocent victim of Viacom. ahref=http://www.toptensources.com/topten/YouTube- and-Viacomrel=url2html-27817http://www.toptensourc es.com/topten/YouTube-and-Viacom>

Re:Non-infringing videos caught up in the sweep

[BasilBrush]

Viacom forced YouTube to take down 100,000 videos today, and to send out tens of thousands of DMCA Complaint notices. Viacom made the list of "infringing videos." How did they make it? I bet they used spiders. The spiders were not as sophisticated as one might hope. I suspect that thousands of truly innocent videos are now blocked on YouTube. This happened to me yesterday.

Then you should also be aware that just as the DMCA puts a duty on OSPs to take down any material on the reciept of a takedown notice, they also have a duty under the DMCA to restore any non-infringing material that was taken down in error.

Viacom and YouTube

[g0thax3d]

I belive this is wrong that viacom is going after youtube. Since youtube doesn't influence what is posted on there site I belive viacom should be going after the users that post it. Since it's them who ripped the show(s) from the tv and posted it on the site.

Good Riddance

[Mex]

I don't watch TV anymore. I haven't done that for at least 6 months now. All I watch for entertainment is Youtube, and the linked clips on Digg.

If Viacom doesn't want me to watch their shows, good riddance. There's lots of other companies that appreciate the free publicity for their shows.

Yeah, Colbert may be funny, but I think I'll live on without him.

and so

[treak007]

Google finally begins to question the decision to buy youtube.

Actually, is this problem even a concern to google? Wouldn't it be the responsibility of Viacom to contact the users who are uploading Viacom videos?

Not so fast...

[dantheman82]

CBS has streamed large segments of their programs (like Late Late show and Comedy Central) on their own websites, and with a Real Player plugin on the Mac or PC, I can watch a large segment of Craig Fergeson or others on CBS. So, they don't want to have distribution through Youtube but rather have people go to their website. But maybe it's also the fact that others have been posting their clips with Gawker ads and they're not sure YouTube will long-term be in their best interest.

Licenses

[bwogowly]

Since videos are like the ability to share the imagination of memories of an event, licensing videos violates free speech and is the same as licensing history itself. On the same note, are driver's licenses a license of a car or the driver? Therefore, licensing should be outlawed.

YouTube is pulling innocent videos

[bleedingneon]

Viacom has every right to protect and enforce its copyright. But I think some of the videos caught by the broadly-cast net are NOT violations at all. Case in point? Mine. Check this out: http://pjperez.livejournal.com/118964.html