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

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.

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

[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

[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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.