Slashdot Mirror
Viacom vs. YouTube - Whose Side Are You On?
DigitalDame2 writes "Lance Ulanoff of PCMag believes that the Viacom and YouTube lawsuit is a bad idea because it has the potential to damage the burgeoning online video business; instead, it could work with the millions of people who are currently viewing Viacom content on YouTube. On the other side, Jim Louderback, an editor-in-chief of PCMag says that Lance doesn't know what he's talking about: with all the content available online for free, Viacom can kiss those investments goodbye. YouTube is actively filtering, actively allowing uploads, and making money off of the content that's been uploaded. The courts will find that Viacom has been wronged, that Google has not done enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and that Google owes Viacom reparations. Whose side are you on?"
Just because we like google doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
/. fave?
If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.
Why should google be above the law, just because they're a
Youtube doesn't have the right to host whole tv shows, movies, etc.
Then YouTube turns around to sue a website for copyright infrigement, for allowing you to download the YouTube content - that they don't even own.
I hate youtube. I hate google even more for their involvement of it. It's napster jr, plain and simple, and it'll be shut down.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
YouTube is hosting the material, so ultimately Viacom will win.
Sure, YouTube is a cool idea and users love it, just like Napster was a hit with users. It's the darn content creators who are up in arms.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
One multinational corporation vs. another multinational corporation. Why should I care? Let 'em slug it out. It's not like video on the Net is going to go anywhere, anyway. Spam is illegal, and he have tons of that. Kiddie porn is illegal, and we have tons of that online. Phishing and all kinds of other scams are illegal, and we have plenty of that. Does anybody think that corporate lawsuit #50,401,432 over online video is going to make any kind of real difference to anybody but the attorneys getting paid?
I don't respond to AC's.
taken the first step needed to be at the forefront of video based entertainment for the next decade or more. Viacom seems to be having second thoughts about upgrading their business model.
YouTube/GooTube will be shown to be innocent of any major issues. Viacom will have to get in the game and change their business model, or watch this particular game at home on tv!
We all understand clearly how the **AA has alienated their customers in no small way. Viacom is trying to do the same thing. While it is not clear what failed in the negotiation stage, it is clear to me that they will lose. It is not Google that puts offending material on the Internet. Remember that Google is hardly the only video sharing site on the Internet.
Viacom's real problem is not Google. Their real problem is that the public at large do not respect copyright as Viacom and others would like to define it. (lets not bring in the real definition at this point) That is to say: The public in general would like to redefine 'fair use' for copyrighted materials, and do so in a way that removes some of the business revenue from Viacom and others.
IMO, Viacom and others will simply have to get used to it, or be part of it if they want to stay in business.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
10 years ago, the music industry became aware of a little thing called "MP3s". They offered the potential of distributing music through online channels. But rather than embrace it as a new business outlet, fraught with exciting new opportunities and possibilities, the music industry tried to squash it. Before they knew it, Napster was created. So they quashed that. Then GNUTella was created and they could quash that. Then Kazza, and BitTorrent, and Limewire, and so on and so forth.
In the end, the music industry could not put the genie back in the bottle. It was only the introduction of iTunes that saved them from imploding.
I see a lot of parallels here. While YouTube videos may seem like a bad idea for the old distribution models, they are increasing the amount of exposure that many shows are getting. Comedy Central's hosts have been getting more famous by the day, thanks to YouTube, and CBS has managed to promote personalities like Craig Ferguson by releasing videos themselves. I can respect Loudback's position on this, but there's simply no room for stalling the market. The forces in action WILL demand a way, whether YouTube is the vehicle or not. It's better to embrace them than it is to fight them.
If you'll excuse the overused term, it's time to innovate!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm not sure that's even a valid concept.
That's pretty much what the DMCA is all about, yes. However, Viacom is alleging bad faith on Youtube's part in that a) they do respond in a timely fashion, b) their material is predominantly infringing, and that c) they are profiting off the infringement. There's some precedents to back all these up, but I don't exactly have legal research resources beyond the intarwebs to cite them for you.
Some of these points are debateable, but the preponderance seems to weigh pretty heavily against Youtube.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Which ever one first decides to provide some interesting content gets my vote.
In the battle of the inane vs the vacuous there are no winners.
They are pulling damage figures out of their ass. If anything the appearance on YouTube increases the appreciation of their programming. Naturally they would like to like to stream them through their own advertiser supported network. Damages should not be an issue, just copyright honoring.
What does CBS/Viacom want? Google doesnt have technology to magically scan pixel patterns and match them up to CBS tv shows when someone uploads a video.
Google takes down material when asked.
It is that simple.
Anything else expected by CBS/Viacom is unreasonable and impossible to do.
Google should just kick CBS and Viacom and all of its properties off of Googles search engine.
BTW CBS was partnered with a search engine for a while. One.com or something like that. I forgot what the hell it was called but you would win points the more you searched which would enter you in a monthly drawing for a million dollars.
Perhaps CBS is just pissed off that their investment was a complete failure thanks to Google's dominating power.
These companies dont get it. Its a new generation of media. Things are different, and laws much adapt as do the companies... to the new way we access and share media. The internet is a lonely place without video, music and text.
Posting a video on Youtube is the way things are, and have evovled. It's not a crime, its a new use of technology. Its a way to say "HEY man.. check out my new audio tape... this song is great" and then you play it for your friend.
Now we can say "hey world.. check this out... i liked it, maybe you will" or "I made this funny edit of wolf blitzer saying stupid things"...
Its just a new world. Laws need to lighten up not tighten down. There's a great benefit to having your video being displayed somewhere. I would think CBS would be greatful for the free publicity, plus the fact that they dont have to invest money to host that on expensive servers with demanding bandwidth expenses.
Its free publicity. Eat it up. Not clamp down
Check out this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAd_vpsufRU
Short of it is if your video was unjustly taken down because of Viacom, then the EFF wants to hear from you. Sounds like you'd be a great case.
I'm tired of companies getting rich off of questionable or illegal practices and then, once they have a massive userbase, suddenly selling out to someone to go legit. It's what the original youtube did. It's what Napster did. Imagine if I started up a car dealership and instead of paying for my own cars to stock my dealership, I went down the street and stole them from my competition. Then I sold those and once I had sold enough of these stolen cars, I had enough customers and money and attention that I could afford to go legit.
It's even worse than companies like Worldcom that can completely screw people over and break every law on the books, fire one guy and just keep on doing business as usual. So the moral of the story is that it's wrong for you or me to "steal" and justify it with "fair use", but it's okay to do it if you're a corporation or are being eyed by hungry corporations.
Napster got nailed not because they allowed users to share pirated bits. They got nailed because they ADVERTISED that fact. P2P sharing is not illegal. Setting up a service that advertises and knowingly facilitates pirating IS. YouTube is not advertised as a place to go for pirated videos, it is advertised as a place for individuals to post videos, and they are actively working to prevent permitted copy written material from appearing.
If that distinction does not hold up in court (or if a deal is not worked out prior to judgment) then it could set up a dangerous precedent that would likely soon lead to the RIAA going after P2P networks, open FTP servers, IRC servers, Usenet, etc... instead of individuals.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
My knee-jerk reaction is to say that Google should win, put I think this case needs to be looked at closer -- this is a good example of the future meeting the past.
On Google's side:
They are complying with the DMCA takedown notices. The problem is, as soon as one takedown is done, another copy goes up under another title or user name. It is like playing whack-a-mole.
Not all of the content is simply copies of content available on the air. I have seen some well done "Music Videos" (i.e. Clips from different movies/TV shows set to various songs) and some interesting stuff like the (fake) Titanic II film promo.
YouTube video is low quality. I would rather watch a full TV show on a real TV set rather than YouTube.
Google is in business to make money.
On Viacom's side:
The material does belong to them. Having to keep issuing takedown notices is a pain in the ass, and takes up a lot of time and money.
From Jim Louderback, also of PC Mag - Jim's Column - Providers such Viacom have agreements with Cable and Satellite providers stating that only x% of their programming can be on line (x is typically 10% or less), so having all of this video online could open them up to breach of contract.
They are in the business to make money.
On My Side:
It is good to have access to content without a lot of restrictions. Like it or not, content put out by Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. becomes part of our culture, and should not be totally locked up. The problem is, where should the line be drawn? I think Viacom should allow clips and derived content, but I can understand wanting to keep some sort of control over it.
I want as much content as possible for as little money as possible (I already pay for Internet and Satellite, so I have access to most of the Viacom channels)
Solutions?
So what is the best solution? There has to be some happy medium where everyone can get at least some of what they want. The RIAA has been fighting p2p for at least seven years now, and has nothing to show for it but declining revenues and increasing hatred by the public. Why would Viacom and/or Google want to end up in the same boat? If Viacom wins, they will look as greedy as the RIAA and the public will find other places to post content. If Google wins, Viacom et. al. will just lobby for changes in the DMCA, which already stinks enough as it is. So what to do --
1. Settle this suit by Google offering Viacom a reasonable payment to cover posting of material. At the resolution that YouTube uses, neither Viacom or the Cable/Satellite industry should suffer. Most people would rather watch shows on a nice TV instead of a small YouTube window.
2. Figure out a way to end the content wars once and for all. This includes the RIAA's ongoing war against p2p and along with the YouTube crap that is going on also. It is time to quit suing and put the Lawyers to work actually doing something constructive for once in their lives -- fixing copyright so that it works in the Internet era. This may involve a small monthly fee along with my DSL bill -- I wouldn't mind paying $5 to $10 per month to allow for legal p2p downloads, YouTube viewing, etc. Forget DRM -- it just penalizes your customers and doesn't stop "piracy" anyway.
The market has changed, and resisting change isn't working. It is time to quit trying to turn back the clock, and time to move forward. The VCR didn't kill the Movie Industry (quite the opposite -- take that Jack V), quit bitching and get to work. Otherwise, Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. will end up committing slow suicide.
Your call guys.
Rant over.
Beware of Sleestak
The analogy was unfortunate because it involved theft(thus rekindling the entire "copyright infringement is not theft" debacle), but it was, in my opinion(and just for the record - I sometimes pirate various types of media and I do believe it's morally OK for me to do so in certain situations, and I would quite strongly agree that copyright infringement is not at all the same as theft in the conventional sense of the word), appropriate. The point was that it seems strange that legal businesses can flourish around what are essentially business models based on illegal acts. Napster is a case in point—I'm thankful for what Napster did for file sharing, but as a business venture, they're a strange tale indeed. "Underground" organizations like the Pirate Bay and various other torrent trackers seem far better suited to the task as organizers of file sharing.
(In my opinion, though, extrapolating from this to Youtube isn't entirely appropriate. There's quite a lot of original, legal content on Youtube. (Do people actually use Youtube for media piracy? I've always found the quality horrendous for any sort of extended viewing.))
While I will grant you the point about Napster, I don't think it necessarily applies to YouTube. YouTube is at best good for short clips, whether copyrighted or not, not so much for anything full-length. Everything I've ever watched on YouTube is either video that the creator explicitly wanted to be there (promotional stuff for bands, etc.) or short clips from TV shows, that while technically infringing, is not any huge threat to the market for the real show and probably even works as promotion, at least IMHO. People who want to "steal TV" are getting it from BitTorrent, not YouTube.
YouTube became a phenomenon because it was the first popular way for people to share short video clips, not as vector to share copyrighted content. Yes, some copyrighted content does get shared, but I really don't see that as the *primary* reason for YouTube's rise, as opposed to Napster where I can't really make that argument.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
One of the scariest things that might come out of this is an "upgrade" of the DMCA. I've been reading the stories about the lawsuit, and it's really bizarre to see a tech company defending the DMCA and a content company saying it's a bad law.
Despite the fact that Viacom pushed for the adoption of the DMCA against the tech community's wishes, they're now claiming that it's *too nice* to copyright violators. Since it makes them issue takedown notices and limits the liability of hosting providers, they hate it in the YouTube scenario. They want a new law that doesn't even require takedown notices and instead forces hosting providers to actively police their content for violations - something that's obviously unworkable.
I really hope they fail with this, but it's probably too much to ask. If they win, all content hosts will be in big trouble, and if they lose the entertainment industry will push for a law that will let them win. A scary situation...
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
How much "commenting" is required? If I upload 2 minutes of Jon Stewart with "OMG, this RULZ", is that enough? What if I say, "This was one of the funniest, and saddest, clips of the last several months"?
What I'm driving at here is that the article you link to (as all articles about fair use) reads more like how to prepare for a jury trial than it does about how to obey the law.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
I would like to second that myself. While I don't condone YouTube "stealing" copyrighted content, I can personally attest that it has piqued my interest in several shows that I might otherwise have missed (that I then ended up watching on regular TV).
Just the other day I was watching some old "Six Million Dollar Man" and "Bionic Woman" clips and it made me realize that these have actually held up remarkably well (I thought they would be totally cheesy after all these years). It made me want to go out and buy the DVD's. Unfortunately, they're still not available on DVD in the U.S. (what's up with THAT?).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.