×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the less-tube-more-goo dept.

203

Jeff writes "In March, an earlier Slashdot post asked if iTunes sales of the Daily Show would make it harder to share clips online. Well, apparently with the $1.65 billion YouTube acquisition by Google, the answer is now yes. Today, YouTube removed all of its Comedy Central content. Google knew this was coming but you have to wonder if YouTube will be worth that $1.65 billion on Monday. The take down request comes a year after a Wired interview where Daily Show Executive Ben Karlin encouraged viewers to download: 'If people want to take the show in various forms, I'd say go.' Maybe the New York Times Company would have been a better acquisition for Google after all."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

203 comments

Allow me to be the first to say... (2, Interesting)

camusflage (65105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619272)

DUH.

While Google has a pretty good track record, there have been a few flops. This may prove to be one of them.

Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619662)

It really has more to do with Google video not wanting to be seen losing against Youtube. A defensive purchase to protect a rather high share price that is not based on revenue but upon the perception of Google being a winner.

For Google to be seen losing in a market against a new competitor would have damaged that perception of being a iwnning competitor i.e. if a new upstart can beat Google in one area, how many other new players are there out in the market place that can beat Google in other areas (forget the microsofties, they have trouble beating them'eww').

Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619834)

Youtube is going to censor everything now. Youtube sucks!

Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619848)

What's Google got to do with this, exactly?

It looks like Viacom made a request to YouTube to remove copywritten material. YouTube complied. End of story.

Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (2, Funny)

HansF (700676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619892)

Google bought Youtube recently. Guess you didn't get the memo.

Goole's Plan! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619282)

1) Buy YouTube
2) Wait for all of the content to be removed
3) ???
4) profit!

So much for that. (1, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619306)

Guess youtube is dead then.

Re:So much for that. (1)

alamandrax (692121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619594)

Well, I've given up on searching for clips of the Daily Show on youtube for a while now. There are a few people who regularly update their playlists and give you a good selection of clips from the show (onegoodmove.org/1gm) but their videos kept getting deleted.

I live in Texas and the TVU Player [tvunetworks.com] streams being based off of California, I get to watch the show at 4PM; quite convenient for me. It's not the best, but it works out quite well (Comedy Central reruns the show many times every day).

Got recommendations?

Except (1)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619712)

When I search for "colbert" on youtube, I still get 4558 results. Daily Show still yields 6046.

Re:Except (2, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619846)

When you click on the videos, are they available?

Youtube's indexer has never been just super-current. Oftentimes I'd click on a video only to find that it'd been removed due to terms of use violations.

Re:So much for that. (1)

T.Louis (1015101) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619738)

I second that. Jon Stewart on the Daily Show was the only reason I visited YouTube on a weekly basis. Sure, I watched a few Japanese TV shows while I was there, but nothing can top the Daily Show.

Re:So much for that. (5, Interesting)

ImaNihilist (889325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619796)

This is what I've been saying for a while now. YouTube is over. 6 months from now all the illegal content will be gone and YouTube might as well just divide the sight into two sections: BoobTube and MTVTube, because that's the only content it's going to have. Thing is, we already have BoobTubes all over the internet, and music videos...eh. You can usually find the video you are looking for from the artists website, and it's not in shitty Flash format. If that fails, it's on MySpace.

I really liked YouTube too. It was nice to be able to watch Comedy Central shows, and older Adult Swim stuff that isn't on Fix. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.

I still don't get why Google bought YouTube. It's just a giant liability. It's like buying the The Pirate Bay. Sure we all love it, but who actually wants to own that?

Re:So much for that. (1)

Kattspya (994189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620066)

Nothing will change much. The movies will get deleted faster than before but the material will still be there unless something really nasty happens.

I thought I was pessimistic.

Re:So much for that. (2, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620156)

I can't imagine there will be many uploaders if:

  1. Their uploads are deleted faster than they can send a link to their friends
  2. They can be banned from the site, or even arrested and convicted and imprisoned

Re:So much for that. (1)

ImaNihilist (889325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620162)

Nah. It wouldn't even escalate to that level. YouTube just puts up a little filter with keywords, and anytime you try to submit something with those keywords it has to be moderated before it goes live.

Re:So much for that. (1)

kakofb (725561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619886)

Umm, to be quite honest YouTube was never a source of copyrighted material for me or anybody I know. YouTube is about the latest whatever craze, homemade humourous imitations and newsworthy/topical ads and other video content. I've never seen anything from comedy central, in fact the only copyrighted material I've come across is some Family Guy excepts. The quality of that terrible flash player in YouTube does not make it a worthwhile source of media content, and I'm actually quite surprised at the responses from Slashdot and others that the removal of copyrighted material from YouTube would actually impact its content or its popularity.

Re:So much for that. (3, Interesting)

ImaNihilist (889325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620024)

That's because you are in the minority. YouTube has grown beyond the kind of people who read Slashdot, play WoW, and know what a "roflcopter" is. The mainstream YouTube crowd goes there for music videos, comedy central, and other various TV show clips. My ex-girlfriend would watch project runway on YouTube.

Really, there aren't that many people that want to watch some homemade crap. You might think that, but the reality is that's been around forever on various sites, and those sites have been small. The audience just isn't that huge. While it might seem like even a brookers or lonelygirl video has a massive amount of hits, and that's true, that's only one video. For every one of those viral vidoes that gets 100,000 hits in a day, there are 100 clips of copyrighted material that get 5,000 hits.

Just look at the comparison between YouTube and Google Video. The only real difference is that YouTube has copyrighted material, and for that reason YouTube is probably several orders of magnitude more successful.

Overtime you will see YouTube phase out into just another AtomFilms...or iFilm...or Google Video. The only thing that ever made YouTube different was the massive amount of copyrighted material.

Re:So much for that. (2, Insightful)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620048)

It's only dead if you think that "the little guy" never makes and uploads anything interesting.

While it's more profitable for a large corporation to police copyright violations (so people are forced to get their daily dose of the Stewart on their network, for example), for independent filmmakers, machinima artists, and small-time .com's, having material on YouTube is an asset; it makes people aware of the fact that they're out there, making things. It builds a fanbase, and that's important to them -- unless they're complete marketing n00bs, they won't request for their content to be taken down.

And besides, home videos of cats flushing toilets are pretty funny.

What happened to "safe harbor"? (0, Redundant)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619310)

My (limited non lawyerly) understanding of US copyright law and the DMCA is that as long as google removes any content when requested by the copyright holder, they are safe legally (for much the same reasons Geocities or Photobucket is not legally required to activly police every upload to hosted homepages/photo albums).
Or was there a specific takedown request from comedy central?

Re:What happened to "safe harbor"? (3, Informative)

Zelucifer (740431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619344)

If you RTFA "I received a couple of emails from YouTube this afternoon (see below) notifying me that a third party (probably attorneys for Comedy Central) had made a DMCA request to take down Colbert Report and Daily Show clips.". There is no mention whatsoever of a lawsuit.

Re:What happened to "safe harbor"? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619562)

So, in other words, Google followed the law in order to prevent putting themselves at legal or civil risk. This is news?

Re:What happened to "safe harbor"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619826)

Yes its news you idiot. If all the good content goes away then YouTube is worthless because no one will visit the site. What kind of idiots buy a video clip website for $1.65 billion dollars anyway? That was an even dumber acquisition than ebay buying skype. At least skype has shown a profit.

Re:What happened to "safe harbor"? (2, Interesting)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619852)

"...as long as google removes any content when requested by the copyright holder, they are safe legally..."

This is the part I don't get. Comedy Central [comedycentral.com] itself links to Daily Show [comedycentral.com] and Colbert Report [comedycentral.com] clips on Youtube. So who, then, issued the DMCA requests, and why didn't they let the webmaster know?

This makes no sense.

Re:What happened to "safe harbor"? (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620010)

"This is the part I don't get. Comedy Central [comedycentral.com] itself links to Daily Show [comedycentral.com] and Colbert Report [comedycentral.com] clips on Youtube. So who, then, issued the DMCA requests, and why didn't they let the webmaster know?

This makes no sense."

Well, who would have the most benefit from having those clips removed from YouTube?

Comedy Central, or... Fox?

DMCA can lick my shiny, metal balls. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619316)

Suck it, DMCA. Suck it, government. I'm tired of it. You all need to die in a fire.

Re:DMCA can lick my shiny, metal balls. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619454)

Suck it, DMCA. Suck it, government. I'm tired of it. You all need to die in a fire.

Suck it Google for ruining a good thing. Google had their own video service to screw up, why'd they have to mess with YouTube. Nobody really cared about YouTube until some multi billion dollar company came around and tried to start using it for massive profit.

Umm, "due to DMCA"? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619324)

Don't you mean "due to the basic law of copyright that the US has had for over 200 years and is embedded into the Constitution"?

Re:Umm, "due to DMCA"? (3, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619602)

Don't you mean "due to the basic law of copyright that the US has had for over 200 years and is embedded into the Constitution"?

He means "due to the basic law of copyright that the US has had for over 200 years and is embedded into the Constitution, and allowed 26-year copyright terms and fair use, until the media companies contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to political parties and started hiring former congressmen and their aides as lobbyists."

For 200 years, American newspapers were copying from other newspapers. (And American inventors were copying steam engines and everything else from Europe.) The main difference now is that the Internet has unleashed corporate lawyers to find them and persecute them.

Why the DMCA? (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619332)

I don't get what this has to do with the DMCA...I mean, I think the DMCA is as much a piece of crap as everyone else, but Comedy Central would still have the right to force YouTube to take the content down even without the DMCA. It's just a copyright law violation. Just because they "passively allowed" it for a time doesn't make it impossible for them to change their mind sometime down the road...

Re:Why the DMCA? (5, Informative)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619470)

I don't get what this has to do with the DMCA...

The DMCA isn't just about copy protection, it also includes sections that detail the way a copyright holder is to notify a service that hosts user-uploaded content and the way such a service must respond to those notifications. Check out 17 USC 512 [cornell.edu].

Re:Why the DMCA? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619608)

I didn't get it at first either (was stuck in the "circumventing" mindset) until I found this: (http://docs.binnews.com/index.php/DMCA_Request), which reminded me that the "C" in DMCA deals with copyright.

*off topic*
Firefox 2's spell checker flags DMCA! LOL!

Back on topic:
You are right (IMHO) about not needing the DMCA to deal with this- a simple letter stating that there seemed to be an issue with copyrighted content has always worked with youtube.com, but it seems invoking the DMCA to "leverage the versatility of the relationship of our relations in the new e/i-commerce market needs to be exploited and developed to maximize our marketshare in the upcoming *whatever*2.0" or some some such shite is the current method.

Damn...Boston Harbor has not tasted like tea for too long.

Re:Why the DMCA? (2, Informative)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619760)

I don't get what this has to do with the DMCA...I mean, I think the DMCA is as much a piece of crap as everyone else, but Comedy Central would still have the right to force YouTube to take the content down even without the DMCA. It's just a copyright law violation.

The DMCA isn't all about "no circumventing futile copy protection attempts" and "no telling other people how to circumvent futile copy protection attempts" - this is actually about the good part of the DMCA.

You're right that this would have been a copyright law violation without the DMCA - and YouTube might have been in some serious trouble over it. It's YouTube's servers that were making countless copies of the Colbert Report segments and sending them out, after all. So what is YouTube supposed to do? They can't look at every single user-uploaded video clip and try to match it against every one of the millions of copyrighted works it might be a copy or derivative of. They'd never succeed, and they'd eventually go down in court harder than Napster 1.0. It wouldn't just be YouTube, either - ISPs who run web servers for copyright infringing users' content, maybe even just ISPs who provide bandwidth for infringing users' uploads might have become legal targets.

Part of the DMCA [wikipedia.org] gives service providers a way out. If you want to help someone publish on the internet, but you want to avoid being liable for assisting them if it turns out that what they publish infringes on a copyright, you register an agent with the Copyright office, that agent responds to legal "takedown" notices and counter-notices, and so long as you do basically what YouTube is doing now (give your users a chance to rebut the copyright claim, and keep their material offline unless they do) you're in the clear.

It's not a perfect law, but if all new internet legislation made this much sense I'd feel quite a bit better about the US Congress. How this got stuck in the same bill as the "you can't decrypt the movies you bought" BS, I have no idea.

D'oh (1, Redundant)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619338)

D'oh... The fact that Colbert could be found in so many places on YouTube was a running joke on Colbert itself, that's how integral YouTube had become. Though really, do 5-minute clips of the show threaten Comedy Central's revenue model, or help it? An iTunes purchase is never going to hit the front page of Digg, it's never going to be linked to en masse by blogs. I guess Comedy Central does post their own clips, but they seem hard to navigate through.

Re:D'oh (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619370)

Though really, do 5-minute clips of the show threaten Comedy Central's revenue model, or help it?

Now that YouTube is owned by a company with serious money, they're probably trying to negotiate a deal where Google pays X amount per view or something. They can't do that while they're allowing their content to be downloaded for free. My guess is it's all political maneuvering.

Re:D'oh (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619486)

Presumably some consideration would be given to YouTube for the fact that 1) YouTube is paying the bandwidth costs, so comedycentral.com's clip service doesn't have to, and 2) much like radio playing singles from an album, it's free advertising to hook people into being interested in the larger work. Granted, TV shows don't sell for $15 a pop, but the "best 5 minute" clip from each show is still a good advertisement... advertisers typically don't get even 20 seconds of someone's attention to sell their product... having a 5 minute ad show up every couple days on Digg has to be very valuable free marketing.

Re:D'oh (2, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619542)

True, but it's even more valuable to get that free marketing plus a kickback from Google. Google probably saw this coming a mile away...I'd be amazed if their plan for buying YouTube didn't involve some sort of sustainable business model like using ad revenue to pay copyright holders of high-profile content...

Re:D'oh (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619802)

The real thing is, the "pirate" content on YouTube is about 98% of the interesting stuff on YT. I mean ok, the shrimp on a treadmill is pretty cool. But what else is there to watch? Making good video content is hard.

Re:D'oh (1)

limit (160671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620112)

"Proprietary" and "Free" content should be segregated in YouTube. I like being able to review Colbert and Stewart clips as much as anyone but they distract people from rating idea submissions from people who don't have cable shows.

Re:D'oh (1)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619386)

I guess Comedy Central does post their own clips, but they seem hard to navigate through.

Uh ... yeah. This is exactly what they need to do. Why would they give such huge traffic away to YouTube when they could still provide free teaser content to fans and build their own site?

Re:D'oh (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619396)

I for one don't miss Colbert. Was sick of seeing so many clips of that show as if it was somehow "insightful" as if they have any idea how politics actually works in the real world.

Re:D'oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619436)

They understand. They understand that it is absurd.

Re:D'oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619476)

> Though really, do 5-minute clips of the show threaten Comedy Central's revenue model, or help it?

I was typically able to find entire episodes of Colbert and The Daily Show on YouTube. I suspect virtually every episode was archived that way. I was sort of wondering when this was going to get put down. Oh well.

Re:D'oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619534)

Comedy Central also sells thier shows on other websites. By letting their shows remain free on a competitor's websites, not only is Comedy Central losing money, but the sites selling their shows are losing money too. In other words, why buy a show from iTunes that I can get for free from YouTube?

Re:D'oh (1)

Xanius (955737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619686)

Quality of the clips.

You can get a low quality audio/video for free or a high quality for $1 or whatever iTunes offers them for.

Re:D'oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619628)

and mac users are shut out of CC's motherlode.

Uhh, no they haven't. (4, Interesting)

mcg1969 (237263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619354)

I just watched a couple of South Park clips. One was brand-spankin' new, just from tonight, but the other one was quite old---and there are quite a few copies at that. Try it yourself: my search term was "south park" "steve irwin"

Sounds like they have some work left to do, if they're actually serious about doing it.

Way to go Google (1)

cabd (970146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619362)

Let's see...
Youtube is a "web 2.0" site. Teenagers being able to post anything and everything generally leads to illegal activity sooner or later. Expect to see many cases like this in the future. On a positive note, at least Google is being nice and doing the right thing. A large company doing the right thing? Up until now, only in dreams and legends. Nice way to set a positive example Google. OTOH, any guesses on how much the big G's finances are going to drop?

Or.. (5, Funny)

CYwo1f (166549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619366)

Google could just pick up Comedy Central for a fraction of the cost of YouTube, if the clips were really that important to people.

Plenty of it still on there... (1)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619398)

There's still plenty of stuff from there. I only searched for stuff from Mind of Mencia, but it's there, and I saw other CC stuff as well.

The /. summary made it sound like it was all supposed to be gone in one go... I wouldn't be surprised if it's a somewhat gradual purging instead.

This is the actual email (5, Informative)

mikeleemm (462460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619400)

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Comedy Central claiming that this material is infringing:

Steve Wozniak on Colbert Report 09/28/2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIfYgbajpk [youtube.com]

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

(C) 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.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:

DMCA Complaints
YouTube, Inc.
1000 Cherry Ave.
Second Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
Email: copyright@youtube.com

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.

Value for value (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619406)

you have to wonder if YouTube will be worth that $1.65 billion on Monday. That's okay. Google stock won't be worth all that much, either.

$15/month to watch a single TV show? (5, Insightful)

iSeal (854481) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619434)

So correct me if I'm wrong, but to download "The Daily Show" via iTunes, it costs $9.99US for up to 16 episodes. So per month, that'll add up to over $10. Maybe something around $15US/month. Now who'se the person that thought charging this much was a good idea?

I mean can you imagine the bill of using iTunes vs. Tivo? Buying the Simpsons... Family Guy... Daily Show... The News... Daily Planet... Let's see... that adds up $75/month. For 5 shows. No wonder people pirate this crap!

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619472)

Wow, when you think of it that way, cable or satellite TV is a hell of a deal.

$55/mo for a cable DVR that will record all of those shows...

Not if you only watch a few shows (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619664)

What if you only watch the daily show and a few others? It takes a fair number of shows purchased independantly to equal a cable bill, not to mention that for many of us any cable that gets us Comedy Central is more than $55/mo...

From that standpoint it's a hell of a deal that you don't have to pay a recurring fee for something you might only use a once or twice a week!

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620090)

Wow, when you think of it that way, cable or satellite TV is a hell of a deal.

Maybe for you, but no cable here and none of the available satellite stations (China and Philippines) offer Comedy Central. (And no iTunes, for that matter, they won't sell to me.)

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (1)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619692)

Well, no. They only do 4 episodes a week, so it's about 16 episodes per month at the most. However, they don't make new shows every week either, so the average per month is more like 13, making the cost a bit less than $10. Many of your other shows listed don't do nearly that many episodes, so they come out cheaper per month.

Compared to Tivo, there are some advantages -- it's easy to archive to a (data) DVD, and easier to put on an iPod. Overall, it makes the most sense if you don't watch enough TV to justify the cost of cable and a Tivo but still want to watch a couple shows.

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (4, Insightful)

tOaOMiB (847361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619704)

Personally, I don't have cable. At $60/month, it isn't worth it. Everything I watch is on broadcast for free: local sports, news, reruns and what have you.

Everything, that is, except for the two channels I would pay for: Comedy Central, and Cartoon Network. I don't watch a lot of TV. I don't have time to watch a lot of TV. But I'd love to catch the Daily Show for 20 minutes of my life every day. And you're telling me I should shell out $60 to Comcast for 30 minutes per day + lots of crap I don't have time for, instead of $10 to Apple but be limited to what I actually want? (It's only on 4 times a week, so it really is only $10 a month.) I don't think so.

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619736)

I first saw Family Guy on youtube. I then went out and bought all the seasons and the movie. I would not have bought those DVDs if not for what I saw on youtube.

Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619888)

i first saw Family Guy on youtube. I then went on and watched all the episodes and the movie. I had no need to buy the DVDs or watch them on TV with all those commercials. No need to use up (expensive) gas to go to the store, order online, or even legally download the shows. I can get them on youtube for free! =)

Obligatory South Park joke (2, Funny)

Dessert Devil (1019360) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619450)

Oh My God, the DCMA killed Youtube! Those bastards!

Re:Obligatory South Park joke (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619484)

The DMCA is what let YouTube take down the stuff without getting sued. Pre-DMCA, Viacom could have just launched a pre-emptive lawsuit. Notwithstanding the noxious amendments about "circumvention devices", a lot of the DMCA is actually good.

Biggie Smalls. Biggie Smalls. Biggie Smalls.
 

You Tube without copyright content is WORTHLESS. (5, Insightful)

Archeopteryx (4648) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619466)

Virtually every link I have ever followed to there has been some clip of television that was far beyond "fair use". The whole point behind You Tube is like the point behind the original Napster; Free access to proprietary content. Remove the desired content, and it will not matter if it remains free. Charge for it what it costs to pay for rights, and it won't matter that the content is still there.

Google got had.

Is it really WORTHLESS? (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619536)

While I did watch quite a few Colben Report (and The Word, specifically) clips on YouTube, I often go there to see stuff that wouldn't otherwise be available, such as Machinima and other video-game related content. Removing propietary content would obviously lose audience, but some of the most viewed videos there (like lonelygirl or whatever her name was) got quite a few hits too.

It is worthless to you... (1)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619708)

YouTube enforcing copyright is only useless to you. Many people go there with the primary intent of watching vlogs or other user created content. And you are a complete idiot if you thought that YouTube could get away with not removing infringing material eventually. I am sure Google aren't such complete idiots that they didn't consider that such material would be removed (and are likely negotiating to get such material back legally).

So much for YouTube (1)

SaidinUnleashed (797936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619504)

Looks like the YouTube guys bailed out just in time. With nothing from TV, etc there, YouTube means nothing and will die shortly.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Back to not watching any kind of TV for me.

In other news.. (3, Insightful)

iSearch (884825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619550)

Comedy central is asking all viewers to stop watching their channel since well.. nobody does anyways. What idiot in their marketing department said "hey, all these people in our target demographic who don't or might not currently watch us are getting interested in our shows... lets stop that from happening!" Another wonderful example of brick and mortar media looking a gift horse in the mouth. I'm sure Jon Stewart is excited that his total viewership just dropped by 80% ovenight :-/

Who Needs Who? Broadcasters Need Net Users (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619588)

... you have to wonder if YouTube will be worth that $1.65 billion on Monday.

No I don't, it's Comedy Central that needs YouTube not the other way around. As there's far more cable television access than broadband in the US, I imagine everyone who wants Comedy Central already has it and that's not what actally drives traffic to YouTube. What drives traffic to YouTube is interesting content you can't get anywhere else. The people who are going to YouTube are a demographic that traditional broadcasters are desperate to reach: young, wealthy trendsetters. Those kinds of people are increasingly entertaining themselves and think of the big broadcasters as greedy providers of costly, government censored and advert filled shows. If the big broadcasters want to keep selling to people, they need companies like YouTube. People will still go to YouTube to both post and find first rate entertainment, regardless of what Comedy Central does.

YouTube is for suckers... (1)

Deviant Q (801293) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619612)

...BitTorrent is where the wonderfulness is at.

http://www.mininova.org/sub/272/added [mininova.org]
http://www.mininova.org/sub/114/added [mininova.org]

Just wish they were RSS feeds :(.

Re:YouTube is for suckers... (2, Informative)

gotgenes (785704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619858)

Just wish they were RSS feeds :(.
Like this [mininova.org]? Looks like there are.

Viacom connection (1, Interesting)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619646)

Viacom owns Comedy Central. Viacom is ~70% controlled by Sumner Restone. According to sourcewatch Sumner Redstone ' ' endorsed George W. Bush for re-election, saying that "the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. ... 'I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.'" ' '

Now over 1/3 of thesilentpatriot's videos on YouTube have been removed. Looks to me like The Man is trying to keep all this prime satire off the web to help out the 'pubs.

One obvious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619706)

If that's the case, what took him so long...

Re:One obvious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619974)

Because he's 83 years old and just found out about it?

Breaking news: (5, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619652)

Dateline, 7 Dec. 2042: Media launch suprise attack against Free Internet.
In a stunning turn of events today, the forces under the command of the Greater Hollywood Control Sphere launched a suprise attack against the Free Internet Alliance servers stationed at port 80 on the island of 208.65.153.242. The attack left the port in ruins, and many of the FIA systems completely offline or suffering serious information loss. Reports are coming in from the main server on #c_n_c that as many as 60% of all system resources are currently lost to crashed daemons, and that in going down, at least one F.I.A. system may have crashed into a scanning transport beam, rendering whole parts of the system unaccessible. The latest packets from the scene of the tragedy indicate that possibly as many as several thousand user processes may have been lost in the attack.

Currently, the Free Internet government is in a state of panic. Previous to this time index, all signs had been indicating that a lasting peace might be achieved with Imperial Hollywood. Now, with this blatant betrayal by the GHCS after they claimed to be nearing a peace agreement with the FIA, it appears that the forces and nation of the Free Internet will inevitably be dragged into the battle already raging on large parts of the Network. Within a hundred microcycles of the GHCS' unconscionable attack against 208.65.153.242 and subsequent declaration of war, dictator-superuser Bill Gates of the Eighth-Generation Empire declared war against the FIA. The government of the FIA, operated out of restricted IRC channel #fia_gov hosted at 63.161.169.137, has now reciprocated, declaring war against both the GHCS and the Empire and their allies.

Now is the time to fight back for freedom! As of today, #fia_gov has issued the results of a unanimously-supported poll ordering full mobilization of all Alliance forces. We shall recover, we shall recompile our executables, and we shall strike back at the enemy wherever his code may be. No longer can we hide from the reality of the threat all forces for freedom on the Network face! Already, all attack programs and bandwidth we can spare are being sent to our ally, beleaguered Great Computer, to assist in it's fight against the tyrranical control of the Eighth Empire's palladium war-recognizers.

And so with our parting datagram, we urge you to fight! In the words of SysAdmin Roosevelt, We shall never surrender to the forces of fascism and tyranny! We shall fight them, server-by-server, partition-by-partition! Hear this, Occupied Routers: We shall be back!

*** END OF LINE
Other leading stories:
  • DMCA is extremely badly written and poorly thought out law
  • Media execs found to have heads up asses with regards to Internet
  • Copyright inexplicably incompatible with ability to effortlessly duplicate information.

Someone better get a kick out of this. I spent enough time writing it. ;P

Doesn't devalue YouTube in the slightest. (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619698)

Yes it was sort of handy being able to see whole shows on YouTube. And I don't think that will actually change much in the future as people create new accounts, upload content, and it gets removed in an endless cycle where YouTube acts as a short-term cache.

For me and a lot of other people the value of YouTube is really in all the user created videos. What people have not thought about is that whlile a lot of the content is drek, with some editing some of it from various sources could actually produce some compelling video - and YouTube has the rights to everything put on the site.

As long as people keep coming to YouTube the value will hold, and it really will not change because where else are they going to go to find user-created internet video? Not Google Video!

Re:Doesn't devalue YouTube in the slightest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619924)

In other news SuperKendall has sold all of his shares of google stock in anticipation of the crash.

Contacting Comedy Central? (1)

bblboy54 (926265) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619710)

Does anyone have a mailing address for Comedy Central? Seems they dont seem to care if anyone wants to talk to them since I've spent 10 mins on their website and can't find ANY contact information except web forms.

If anyone has an address can you post it here? I will definately be sending them a letter.

Of the Times would have been better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619714)

It would match Google's ideological slant perfectly.

Lets review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619718)

Blogger puts up video on YouTube of Woz on Colbert
Blogger gets email saying the video was taken down due to DMCA
Blogger equates this with all videos from Comedy Central being taken down
Blogger alerts the uninformed, gullable, drive-by masses

YouTube is responding to complains, like they've done from the start. I got one from YouTube on behalf of Warner Brothers. Move on.

Lawyers vs. technology, YouTube vs. another model (3, Interesting)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619722)

The internet with its vastly improved communications technology is doing two things at least. First, it's making the things people used to do locally under fair use a global threat to the value of the traditional distribution schemes. Secondly, the seriouslness of the threat is causing all those lawyers who thought they were protecting content with their licenses to realize it wasn't their work at all that protected content. It was the difficulty of distribution. So lawyers are being taken to the mat everywhere and they're doing what they can. In this case, I doubt it's going to have much effect. There are other sites and even on YouTube the volume of uploads would overwhelm any number of people they put in charge of looking for copyrighted content. They could moderate all video posts to deal with the traffic but it's all just a sideshow. YouTube isn't competing against another couple of large video sites with similar constraints to them. It's competing against another model...one of thousands of smaller video sites, all indexed, and rated by the community. YouTube's challenge is to demostrate that they are providing value even to those whose copyrighted content they are distributing. The happy medium may be one where best of clips are allowed but no complete works without a subscription. Guess we'll all see how it goes...

Really? (3, Informative)

ChaosDiscord (4913) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619816)

YouTube [youtube.com] pulled [youtube.com] all [youtube.com] of [youtube.com] (wow, that's boring to do) the Comedy Central clips? I think not. Go enjoy yourself some Colbert Report. [youtube.com]

I think a more likely case is that Comedy Central files a bunch of DMCA requests, and a bunch got taken down. But a "bunch" is hardly "all." And more will be uploaded. The DMCA is a deeply flawed tool (the mandatory takedown window even if you challenge the takedown is nothing less than an infringement of the first amendment), but in this case it's a copyright infringers friend. YouTube is not legally required to police for Comedy Centrals content, only to take content down when informed. Google (YouTube's new owner) has a very slow DMCA processing system (as someone whose used it, I can confirm this). So just don't worry about it. The total amont of infringing content may go down, and older stuff might be harder to find, but there will be lots of Comedy Central on YouTube for a long time.

dude seriously... (1)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619830)

I am just getting sick of this shit. The whole point of entertainment is TO FUCKING ENTERTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

If it isn't one thing, it is another and another. A lot of shows wouldn't be so popular if it weren't for downloading or watching them on the internet.
All youtube is, is another medium at which entertainers can entertain. The more people watch you, the more popular you are. I can go on and on, but this is getting old.
Can we for once look past the money and do something good for a change. Yes people have to get paid to live but they don't have to get paid what they are getting paid at, which could range in the millions per year. Actors/actresses/musicians/artists/athletes/entert ainers/executives/etc. have no right to be paid millions upon millions for their lack of work in society. Yes they entertain but the priority of entertainment shouldn't be as high as it is. People like scientists and educators should be getting paid a hell of a lot more than what they do now. The problem with our society is the fact that we have big business running the government. How?

Well first off, you have campaign contributions by big corporations to the politician. These politicians get elected and now have to scratch the corporations back by putting into law like the DMCA or other bills. OR we have politicians that come from a big business background and want to maximize profits for their friends or their companies they have/had ties to. When things like the DMCA get passed it hurts innovation and it hurts society. That is why we have a format war going on. That is why we have our rights being stomped out. That is why we are slowly becoming a bunch of sheep. This is just one of many bad things to come if we don't stop this government. Pirate the shit out of everything. Say fuck you to Sony BMG, say fuck you to Microsoft, say fuck you to Universal, say fuck you to warner bros, say fuck you to news corp, say fuck you to disney, say fuck you to aol, say fuck you to DRM, say fuck you to congress, just fucking think for yourself and stop being a god damn sheep to these people. Stop buying their god damn products. Stop paying for their second rate shit. Life is too god damn short for this stupid ass crap.

Dang! (1)

x-vere (956928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619896)

I find it incredibly amusing that so many people are calling the Google/YouTube deal a bad idea. So, they're taking comedy central clips down. Big deal. Remember YouTube is not about sharing commercial clips, its about the little people publishing themselves. I think Google knows what they're doing, what with the deals with a couple major production companies made by YouTube hours before the acquisition by Google and all. There may just be a method to their madness (like protecting themselves from these ridiculous content suits). I think the coming months will prove that Google is still wicked brilliant.

Various comments I have. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16619910)

This is also based on some other stuff I read in the other comments.

1. Whatever happened to common sense? Does viewing these clips online really hurt the show? Does it stop people from watching the show when it's on t.v.? Does it really stop people from buying episodes of the show when they wish to have a true copy of it? No. The people who are going to buy it is going to be roughly the same as before. This is simply alienating people from enjoying something that makes them happy.

2. I bet a lot of polisci professors are going to be angry that they cannot get copies of it anymore for their classes. Yes, some polisci professors do use clips from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, if I'm not mistaken.

3. Bend over America, corporate greed wants more of you.

Daily Show taken down -- October Surprise? (1)

jerryasher (151512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16619978)

This is clearly Rove at work again. To take the Daily Show down two weeks before the election shows that there is no end that these diabolical fiends won't take.

the value of news clips (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16620072)

I would say that sites like YouTube only have value in that they provide somewhat unhindered access to media sources which would not normally be accessible after the 'live' material was gone. For inst

For instance, when Bill Clinton went batshit recently, or John Stewart had his "hurting America" speech, everyone wanted to know precisely what the honest and forward criticism was, partially because it was so atypical, but also because it was topically pertinent. It was on the news, and the'd missed it.

The Daily Show isn't news, it's satirical commentary which makes note of a news item and assumes at least a cursory knowledge of the topic at hand (ie, the actual news). It's more like Leno's opener jokes than it is news. People go to YouTUbe to watch it because it entertains them.

However, stuff like the Daily Show isn't news (by its own producers' admission); it's entertainment. Which doesn't mean it does or doesn't have value. It's just that - intended for entertainment purposes. I think that's the main reason why I've got no objection to such material being removed.

If we start seeing an absense in the news items put on YouTube, I can see there being problems, legit complaints, or financial woes at YouTube - similar to how all the pro-troops videos have disappeared from YouTube.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...