Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos

Posted by Zonk on from the moment-of-zen-everybody dept.

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."

12 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Bad for Viacom by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Since i know people are thinking it... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  3. Viacom has rights by alshithead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
  4. Dear Viacom by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Dear Viacom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  5. You don't. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You don't. by nebaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    2. Re:You don't. by Score+Whore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:You don't. by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:You don't. by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
  6. The ugly truth by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. The Internet is the problem by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.