Viacom Nudges Some Premium Content Online, For Free

amplt1337 writes "Debates about the profitability of 'free' continue to rage, but at least one major media conglomerate — Viacom — is pushing forward with releasing paid-for content for free on the Internet. Of course, the prospect of free and easy full-length Daily Show episodes has caused some tension with cable providers, who pay a hefty premium for a heretofore-exclusive right to distribute the conglom's content (there are obvious parallels with the conflict between labels and musicians). What strikes me as really interesting is that even an old, entrenched company like Viacom has enough vision to see the opportunity for increased profits through free distribution — provided they can control that distribution (see their YouTube lawsuit) and have discretion over just how free they go. Of course, the NYT itself has had its own experience with expanding access to previously fee-based content ..."

Comments

Given the YouTube lawsuit...

[TheRedSeven]

...what they're essentially saying with that lawsuit is that they want their content available for free, but they want to be the ones handing it out.

This makes sense. If I'm going to give away a resource for free, I want to be the one (and the only one!) who makes money off it. If that means I have to restrict who/where/when this free content can be distributed, so be it.

Trouble is, trying to give something away for free and then restrict where and how that something is used, doesn't quite work. They're not losing any money off the sale of that product.

...So how can they sue YouTube for damages when they're planning on giving it away free anyway?

Re:Given the YouTube lawsuit...

[pak9rabid]

...So how can they sue YouTube for damages when they're planning on giving it away free anyway? Could the damages not be lost advertising revenue?

Re:Given the YouTube lawsuit...

[twistedcain]

I have a website filled with thousands of pages of my original content. I charge nothing for people to view my content. Next to my content I have advertising, which more than pays for the time and trouble I put into creating my content. The idea of someone taking and sharing my content (whether or not they give it away for free) could be so damaging that I might no longer be able to create free, original content.

As long as they are going to stick with DRM

[poeidon1]

the *free* is not going to lure me.

Re:As long as they are going to stick with DRM

[p0tat03]

Why not? The big problem with DRM is that I don't get to put the content that *I paid money for* on devices that I want, or put it into any format I please. Since I didn't pay for it, who cares? If they want to restrict me to viewing through their website, sure, whatever. It's not like I paid for it, right?

Its own reward

[ShieldW0lf]

Am I the only one that thinks being able to influence the hearts and minds of millions or billions of people ought to be its own reward?

Seriously, if Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were to spring from their graves and start imposing high license fees on the distribution of their creative works, does anyone seriously think their power and influence would become greater?

Re:Its own reward

[bigstrat2003]

Egocentric? Are you kidding me? Giving credit to someone shouldn't even have to be asked for. You get credit so that, after you do a good job, other people know it was you who did a good job, so they come to you if they need a good job done in the future.

Furthermore, copyright does not in any way "screw things up for the vast majority of us". Poorly done copyright screws things up, not copyright itself.

Oh, and to address your original point, it's complete bs to say that if you want copyright on your work, it's crap and you know it. Not only does that imply that the vast majority of creative works in the past, say, 50 years are crap (and the creators knew it), which is a ludicrous argument, it doesn't even make sense. It's not hard to imagine that someone would want to sustain themselves by selling copies of their work to many people at small prices, than to a few people at high prices. Doing that without copyright is like pounding a nail into a board with your fist instead of a hammer: sure, you can do it, but why the hell don't you use the perfectly good tool available to you?

Re:Its own reward

[bigstrat2003]

What the hell does any of that have to do with copyright? Copyright is a way of legally enforcing the traditional "you want it, you pay for it" means of exchange for a good which is easily obtained against the wishes of the seller. If I wish to make my scribble drawing only available to someone who has paid me for it (or bought a copy of said scribble drawing from a previous owner), that's my right. Copyright is a way for me to protect that right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of copying/distributing works. In fact, the cheaper it is to copy, the MORE necessary it is to have legal protection of the creator's rights.

Re:This is about the daily show then?

[Tuoqui]

Yeah besides didnt Jon Stewart make fun if Viacom suing Youtube on his show? Goes to show you how popular he is that he can get away with making fun of his corporate overlords without them biting his head off.

Re:This is about the daily show then?

[elrous0]

Stewart, Conan, and Colbert did their best work in years during the strike. They should have told their writers not to come back. Stewart, in particular, has been TERRIBLE since the writers came back. On most nights, the audience is all but groaning.

Re:Old tech vs new

[Fieryphoenix]

Viacom is not the distributor... they are the owner, by virtue of owning (and partly founding) Comedy Central. The distributors are the cable and satellite companies. In fact, for that reason, the Daily Show absolutely needs Viacom... no one but the owner can give permission to make the show. Now, the talent on the show could leave and start another show. But that wouldn't be the Daily Show, now would it?