Beta

×

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 Restores Comedy Central Clips

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-want-my-TDS dept.

150

ColinPL writes, "Though YouTube has removed Comedy Central clips, their corporate parent Viacom has confirmed that it wants to find some way to keep the clips available. Viacom has apparently given the green light for YouTube to put the material back up." Update: 11/02 20:49 GMT by Z : We received an email from DB Ferguson at the No Fact zone, letting us know things are a little more muddled than we might otherwise prefer. "This letter contains a link to Jeff's Idealog post where he had evidence that even more clips are disappearing, and I have copies of two Cease and Desist letters that were sent yesterday night from YouTube. The purge continues, despite the news reports that it has stopped or that videos are being put back in."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A good start... (4, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690599)


Comedy Central's clips are a start. A more serious matter is the misuse of the DMCA in efforts to stifle criticism.

An offshoot of the Scientology cult known as The Landmark Forum is using the DMCA against YouTube, Google and The Internet Archive because of a scathing French documentary about Landmark being shared on those sites. It aired in France to 1.5 million people, a month later Landmark pulled out of France. Story at the EFF's site [eff.org] and other news sources.

The video with English subtitles is available via BitTorrent at PirateBay [thepiratebay.org] , search eMule for "Inside Landmark Forum" or view it online at DailyMotion [dailymotion.com] .

Re:A good start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16690837)

Landmark isn't just "an offshoot", it's a full-blown cult in its own right. See:
Cult News [cultnews.com]
Rick Ross' Cult Info [rickross.com]
Cult Help [culthelp.info]

Re:A good start... (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692241)

Thanks to you and GP for the links. I have a friend who got involved in this and tried to suck us in. Now she's disassociated herself with anyone in her life that doesn't walk the Landmark walk. It's sad really as it's taken over her life and probably a good portion of her retirement funds.

Re:A good start... (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693073)


You're welcome. :) I'm seeding that torrent, if anyone can keep sharing after they snag it I'd appreciate it. I'm filling my outgoing bandwidth to (at the moment) 28 peers. Hot video!

Re:A good start... (2, Insightful)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691487)

I don't see why we should spend time educating ourselves on some cult very few have ever heard of when the cults of Christianity and Islam are everywhere and are significantly more powerful.

Re:A good start... (1)

A. Bosch (858654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691687)


don't see why we should spend time educating ourselves on some cult very few have ever heard of when the cults of Christianity and Islam are everywhere and are significantly more powerful.


I would assume it's the misuse of the DMCA in efforts to stifle criticism that would make this of interest of /. readers.

Re:A good start... (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692091)

Because Scientologists are everywhere now. Their "religion" allows you to lie if you feel you are justified, without consequence. They avoid paying taxes, they brainwash themselves and others, they use pyramid schemes to make their money, they suppress freedom of thought and action that doesn't benefit the church, they trap their own practitioners and build files for blackmail on them through their own version of confession called auditing, they are required to shun anyone that disagrees with their religion, and they are f'ing cowards and use aggressive doublespeak tactics in their ineffectual attempts to win arguments.

That said, they aint got nothin on the crazier versions of Southern Baptists. Plus the idea of a galactic fight against alien overlords is kinda cooler than a giant invisible guy with a long beard up in the sky that occasionally gets bored and smites people. But we all know that FSM is really our lord and savior.

Cheers.

Re:A good start... (1)

chuck (477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692215)


They avoid paying taxes,

Now you've got my attention. Where can I sign up for their newsletter?

Re:A good start... (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692621)

They avoid paying taxes, they brainwash themselves and others, they use pyramid schemes to make their money, they suppress freedom of thought and action that doesn't benefit the church
 
Wait, so how does this differ from Christianity/Judaism/Islam?

-Kap

Re:A good start... (1)

aunticrist (952359) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692777)

Let's not forget that they are also responsible for the death of one of their members, although they escaped the criminal charges, they never escaped the civil charges brought by the family.

Re:A good start... (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693467)

While I don't believe in any of Scientology I do have a relative who is a Scientologist, and as a result I know quite a few of her friends who are Scientologists also. From what I've seen first hand they're generally nothing like what people make them out to be.

That's not to say I've never seen any of them deploy some of the nasty tactics you described but it's my impression that those are the Scientology fanatics. From what I've seen you can point to religious fanaticism in any religion and find a laundry list of unsavory characteristics, Scientology is no different. It seems to me that most people just fear what they don't understand, Scientology being a relatively smaller religion is not as widely understood and people take any excuse to find wrong doings.

I'm not defending the religion, many religions including Scientology I consider to be mostly BS, I'm just saying that you can't point your finger at a group of people and make sweeping generalizations without making yourself look like an ignorant bigot.

Re:A good start... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692735)

Chritianity is the following of christ works. this by itself is not a cult.

Some relgion have turned there version of christinity into a cult.

For example, If a catholic was to marry a non catholic, the churge could(but wouldn't) disallow you from attending service, but they don't send people to attack your spouse. They also don't tell you not to talk to your family anymore, and you dn't have to pay a dime to attend there service. Yes, they willask for a donation, but you don't ahve to give and you can still learn about the belief.

So becarefull what you call a cult. No I am not catholic.

A good rule of thumb:
1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members

2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society

3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma

4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds
          recruit people

5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society

from http://www.xenu.net/cic/definit.html [xenu.net]

The number 1 way to tell its Cult... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692761)

Is that it needs more cowbell!

Re:A good start... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692809)

Insightful? Troll is more like it.

Scientology harrasses and/or kills anyone that is not a member of scientology. Unlike killings supposedly done in the name of Christianity, Ron L. Hubbards notes to his followers [planetkc.com] explicitly tells them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill!

Anyone who actually reads the Bible will find, "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc, etc.

Lastly, remember the Xenu (sp?) spat with Slashdot a few years ago? How they fired off a Cease and Desist because a user posted their "copyrighted material" on Slashdot? Screw them. Send me your address and I'll give you a copy of the Bible. Even better, you can read it online here [bible.com] . Visiting a hotel? Try looking in the drawer. There's a Gideon Bible there, free for you to read.

So don't try to compare Scientology and Christianity in general. The two are NOT the same.

Re:A good start... (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692983)

I consider all of the miracles in the bible to be lies (or incorrectly attributed natural events) along with all of the references to god. I would also assume that many in the Church of Scientology are just as firm in their beliefs as you are in yours.

Re:A good start... (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693015)

Not to defend Scientology, but I've never heard of them harming nonmembers, just ex-members. Contrast this to Islam, where a literal interpretation of the Qur'an pretty much undeniably supports killing nonbelievers.

Re:A good start... (1)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693251)


Give me a literal interpretation of this then:

"thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Hint: It isn't the Qur'an

Re:A good start... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692995)

Christianity and Islam never sued anyone for copyright infringement.

Re:A good start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693009)

This poorly researched and wilfully ignorant HURR ALL RELIJUNS IS EQUALLY EVIL crap makes me depressed to be lumped in with many of my fellow atheists.

Here's one reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693123)

For one, Scientology has its own law firm, which it uses on those who criticize it. It's not so much the sci-fi religion that disturbs me, anyhow, but rather the organization behind it.

Believe it or not, people can be concerned about more than one thing at a time. Well, people other than you can, at least.

Re:A good start... (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692441)

An offshoot of the Scientology cult known as The Landmark Forum is using the DMCA against YouTube, Google and The Internet Archive because of a scathing French documentary about Landmark being shared on those sites.

On what basis? They aren't the copyright owner, nor are they the appointed representatives of the copyright owner. Until and unless the French documentary makers complain, what case do they have?

Re:A good start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693193)


They aren't the copyright owner, nor are they the appointed representatives of the copyright owner. Until and unless the French documentary makers complain, what case do they have?

According to the EFF article, one of Landmark's secret magic word books is copyrighted and in the video.

Re:A good start... (1)

bobetov (448774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692455)

Um. I'm hardly a cultist, and Landmark is hardly a cult. I've done 3 seminars with them over the years, for a net of about $1500 for 10 days of group work. It was by far the best money I've spent in my life. It's not for everyone, and there are unsavory aspects to the viral propagation that Landmark (and virtually all seminar-type self-help and training programs) use, but none of it is mandatory or dangerous.

I took my classes, got what I got out of it, and stopped. No one hassled me about it. No one calls, no social pressure, no ostracism.

And for my money, I told my dad I loved him for the first time, revolutionized the romantic relationship I was in at the time, and got a grip of my social self in a way I hadn't even known possible. People I was in class with got married, got divorced, quit their jobs, started new careers - all out of a couple of 3-4 day classes. Very powerful stuff, but for most people who do it, very freeing.

I watched the videos you linked to. They used out-of-context clips to dramatize what goes on in the classes. It's mostly bogus. They also broke a legal agreement not to video or audio record the class, then broadcast that recording. Hardly kosher, whatever your views on copyright etc. That being said, sounds like the DMCA requests are bogus, from what I read on EFF's site.

Also, for the record, Landmark grew out of EST, neither of which has the slightest thing to do with Scientology. There is no religion, in fact no *spirituality* in Landmark's work.

Re:A good start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16692773)

[CultSpeak]
Thanks For Sharing but I'm Already Always Listening and I don't want to Get It which means I won't be able to Create My Possibilities by using Landmark's Technology. I don't want to Commit to the Possibility of Being, that's just a Racket which is OK'd by Landmark.
[/CultSpeak]

Re:A good start... (1)

frenchs (42465) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692467)

As much as I see the similarities in Landmark and CoS, I don't think it's accurate to say that Landmark is an offshoot of Scientology.

I actually had a roommate a few years back that got sucked into Landmark. Turned him from a very cool guy, to a very weird guy.

Re:A good start... (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692505)


Werner Erhard, the man who started EST which became Landmark, was a high level Scientologist. There is a definate link.

Re:A good start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693023)

Colbert Report (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690623)

If this video from Stephen Colbert [youtube.com] is any indication, then Comedy Central may have felt different about the clips than Viacom did. Based on my observations of the situation, the YouTube clips were generating a lot of free advertisement for Comedy Central. Especailly some of their news commentary, which is quite good despite the humor. For myself, I had no inkling of Comedy Central's news commentary until I bumped across Jon Stewart's commentary on Internet Tubes [youtube.com] . Their followup with Senator McCain [youtube.com] was brilliant, and John Hodgman's analysis was an example of razor sharp wit. (And hey, you've got to love the, "I'm a PC" [youtube.com] bit.)

Had it not been for YouTube, I never would have found out about Comedy Central. I'd start tuning in, but I've disconnected my cable. Yet I recently noticed that Jon Stewart's show is up on iTunes. Hmmm..... ;)

Re:Colbert Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16690715)

If you have disconnected your cable because you are a poor college student like myself, just go download the show from newsgroups or a torrent site :)

Re:Colbert Report (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690805)

I disconnected my cable because I'm tired of paying Comcat megabucks for a service I barely use. Everything I want to watch is on iTunes. I can get ala carte content cheaper, faster, and on my own schedule. If anything, I'm watching more TV than I watched when I had cable. No more worrying about when a show is on. Especially if you just want to test the waters by checking out the first episode or two. That's not possible on cable. (Yes, you can time shift with a VCR or PVR, but you have to remember to setup the PVR to record the show you want to check out. Otherwise, you're SOL.)

Re:Colbert Report (0)

cavtroop (859432) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690929)

(this isn't a flame/sarcasm etc., its a legit question) How is that working out though, watching your entertainment on a 4" screen?

Re:Colbert Report (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690971)

Where did he say that his computer has a 4 inch screen?

Re:Colbert Report (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691071)

I don't know about him, but I watch it on one of the following.

my 18"LCD
my 19" CRT
or my new 23" widescreen LCD.

at the resolution supported it's as good as regular lo def TV. so nothing spectacular for the wide screen, but as good as regular TV.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691095)

How is that working out though, watching your entertainment on a 4" screen?

I thought you said this was a legit question?

Oh well, just to clarify: My computer was already my television. I've been using a TV Tuner card to combine the two into a single display. (Saves a lot of space, as you might imagine.) It has provided a lot of advantages, including the ability to use my PC as a PVR.

With iTunes, my viewing experience has actually improved. The quality is better than a PVRed show (even at max quality; which eats up a lot of space), and I can grab the shows anytime I want. My only actual complaint is that the iTunes video window can't be stuck on top of the other windows. That puts a real cramp in my ability to work while watching television. Otherwise, I love it.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

orielbean (936271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691249)

He assumed you watched on a video ipod, not via itunes on a computer / tv.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

hurting now (967633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691717)

Actually, the portability of the iPod is convenient and the quality isn't bad. When I'm on a plane or a long car ride, the iPod is perfect for these applications. It has a bright screen, good sound, and I can pause it whenever I need. I have ported over many of my dvd's (oh no! DCMA grey area!!) and even my PVR on the computer to the iPod.


Does it replace my TV? No. Is it easy to use and convenient? Yes.

Re:Colbert Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691585)

It certainly IS a legit question.
Because there are many, many people out there who mistakenly believe that you can only watch iTunes videos on an iPod.

I get it all the time when I talk about watching video podcasts and the two iTunes TV episodes I bought. I have to explain to people that you can play them right in iTunes and that I don't even own a video iPod because I don't really have a need for one at that price.

For those of you who did not know that iTunes video can be played right on the computer, for example I recently took the WoW South Park episode, which I bought on iTunes because it was inexpensive and better quality than anything on YouTube (I don't do torrents, I need the bandwidth), and played it for some friends on a real TV by connecting my laptop to it.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690721)

All of this week's full episodes are on comedy central's own site [comedycentral.com] . I got the impression they told youtube to remove the videos so they could test demand on their own site.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

loraksus (171574) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690883)

Yeah, but the comedy central viewer really, really sucks.

Re:Colbert Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691053)


All of this week's full episodes are on comedy central's own site. I got the impression they told youtube to remove the videos so they could test demand on their own site.


Yes, and the test is showing that their servers aren't up to the task.

buffering....

Re:Colbert Report (1)

derniers (792431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691597)

you are right the servers do suck, I set it to play (with the sound off) and then sometime later watch it, 6-8 minutes of low quality video and poorly synced sound seems to take 30+ minutes to load, adding to the problem is the poor use of wmv that eats machine cycles like crazy even when not running- at least on a Mac, but I have a Mac Pro so I have cycles to burn

Re:Colbert Report.... Shh! (0)

patrixmyth (167599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690781)

exNay on the Aysaying ouye umpedde ablecay, atthe's hyway iacomVe oesgay fterAy tubeUway!

Btw, if it's already up, you seriously need to see yesterday's analysis of the Kerry- flap-up, absolutely the best coverage of the issue on any medium, including newsprint.

Re:Colbert Report.... Shh! (1)

patrixmyth (167599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691581)

Here's the Daily Show Clip [youtube.com]

This is exactly the sort of coverage that makes Daily Show and You Tube important to our political process. Instead of Kerry's odd responses, I think this clip should be forwarded to anyone spouting off about how "offended" they were.

Re:Colbert Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691083)

Agreed.

I think Comedy Central (et al. Viacom), may be the first Corporation to really see the bigger picture with regard to Youtube, Advertising, and Users. Youtube IS free advetising. Plain and simple. When I first heard they were removing clips, it pissed me off. Not because they're exercising their right, but because it does no one any actual harm, and does not in any way DECREASE their profits. If anything, it increases them as more people who may not see the show, now get exposed to it. THIS, is what I think they finally picked up on. I know if I miss a few days of TDS or CR, and catch a hilarious diatribe on Youtube from either, I'll be more inclined to watch it that night.

I've always liked Comedy Central, and them taking this stance really hits home that they want to keep in touch with their target demographic. If other Corps. started doing this, and releasing the strangle-hold on clips on Youtube, I might consider watching more of their programming as well. Until such time, they get the *Corporate ASSHOLES* label.

Comedy Central *GETS IT* people!!!!

Re:Colbert Report (1)

dave_mcmillen (250780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691625)

I've always liked Comedy Central, and them taking this stance really hits home that they want to keep in touch with their target demographic. If other Corps. started doing this, and releasing the strangle-hold on clips on Youtube, I might consider watching more of their programming as well.

I notice that CBS is all over YouTube: they post clips, trailers, and so on, for their shows, under the member name CBS (age: 78).

Of course, this doesn't tell us what they do when other people post things from their shows. Does anyone know?

Re:Colbert Report (1)

coastin (780654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691227)

Too bad you're not getting Comedy Central due to cutting off cable. I can see turning off the cable, except I get all of my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. It's just newsyer than the other fake news (fox, cnn, msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs, etc.) shows you see on the boob tub.

Re:Colbert Report (1)

drewtown (1021549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691329)

Colbert especially feeds on his fans and Viral Video, just look at what power he has already (Hungarian bridge anybody). I think there is a lot to be said about youtube and it's power for legal markets to stake their claim in the online video market. Personally if I found a colbert clip incredibly amusing/smart/witty I'd go look it up on youtube or on colbertnation and share it with my friends and family, it's a great way for them to get their name out.

You know whats going to suck? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692445)

Ten years from now, when every PHB who spent a decade trying to prevent people from sharing culture with each other has seen the light and starts issuing press releases about how they've discovered that filesharing is a cost-effective loss leader, etc.

Meanwhile I suppose the geeks will begging the corporate & government tag-team to "allow" things like GNURadio, spectrum sharing, etc. And the beat goes on...

Re:Colbert Report (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693433)

For myself, I had no inkling of Comedy Central's news commentary until I bumped across Jon Stewart's commentary on Internet Tubes.

Yeah, that was fun. But do you realize how out of it you appear to be?

Back before the 2004 US elections, one of the most fun political stories was about several surveys that turned up the apparent fact that the people most likely to correctly answer questions about the candidates' policies and records were not those that watched TV news, but rather those that watched the Daily Show. It was fun to watch the MSM (MainStream Media) news folks try to spin their way out of that one. Since then, there have been a few similar results reported about news in general. The news industry is in sorry shape these days, and there's no sign they're getting any better.

So if you're not following the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, you're missing the main media source of good, reliable news.

(Of course, if you know how to read, you have much better sources of news. But that excludes most of the American population, who primarily get their "news" from TV. And those are the people voting in the "sole remaining super-power". Just think what this means for the world as a whole. We're all in sorry shape.)

I wonder.... (2, Insightful)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690631)

if this has anything to do with Steven Colbert's veiled attack against Viacom on his show last night?

Re:I wonder.... (2, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690833)

if this has anything to do with Steven Colbert's veiled attack against Viacom on his show last night?

"veiled attacks" on The Report mean great things for everyone who's being attacked. If anything, the major media outlets are beginning to realize that Internet content distribution is nothing but great for all parties involved.

I'm sure it has something to do w/the money that they see with Google floating in the background but that's for another story...

Re:I wonder.... (1)

Kaki Nix Sain (124686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692531)

I don't know, but someone should update his wikipedia entry to say that it was 100% his great idea.

Gnomes (1)

Lewrker (749844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690643)

1. Threaten to sue YouTube if they don't remove your materials from their database.
2. Offer money to YouTube to restore your materials to their database.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Gnomes (1)

revery (456516) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690731)

1. Threaten to sue YouTube if they don't remove your materials from their database.
2. Offer money to YouTube to restore your materials to their database.
3. ???
4. Profit!


I think Viacom is banking on the fact that there is no step 3.

Comedy Central.. (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690685)

This is great PR for Comedy Central. I wonder if their ratings will go up.

Re:Comedy Central.. Chappell show (1)

pacalis (970205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692033)

I was surprised that Comedy Central pulled the show - the reason Chappelle show killed other DVD sales is becuase the online clips moved it from a sleeper to a hit.

The tension probably arises from the fact that one arm (prob. comedy central) made an agreement with iTunes, whereas another arm (i.e. Viacom) profits from DVD sales and/or general ad revenue. Obviously iTunes is a stupid idea - who cares to see the whole show vs. a particular segment.

Re:Comedy Central.. (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692651)

Actually it's part of a pattern and I'm glad they're continuing it. Anyone else remember back in the 90's when Fox was going around agressively handing out Cease and Desist orders to anyone on the web hosting any kind of Simpsons related material? Meanwhile Comedy Central welcomed people to its material and freely let them host, download or share pretty much anything they wanted. I think this helped greatly with channel's overall popularity and acceptance in the web community.

And as for FauxH^H^H^H^ Fox, well we all know what has happened to them. "Fair and balanced"? Give me a break.

Still don't see the big deal (1)

ereshiere (945922) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690693)

What, exactly, was pulled from YouTube the other day? When I read about this on /. of course I went to YouTube to check it out, but there were thousands and thousands of Colbert Report clips still there. Was it full episodes that were taken down?

Re:Still don't see the big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16690871)

I did the same thing last night when Colbert announced it on his show. A quick YouTube.com search showed that at the time it wasn't true.

Re:Still don't see the big deal (1)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690895)

No, not just full episodes, an interview with Eleanor Holmes Norton [youtube.com] was pulled which is a shame, because it was one of the best bits of Colbert and I was just telling a friend of mine that he should watch it.... Hopefully they will restore that - if anything can sell Colbert Report, its that clip.

-Em

Clips over 5 minutes (1)

jaaron (551839) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692637)

According to some videos I saw on YouTube (can't find the link right now), it looked like only clips over 5 minutes were pulled.

YouTube works for Viacom (1)

TheDrewbert (914334) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690783)

I was sent a link to Lewis Black http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G6yx_jJuoE/ [youtube.com] ranting on Dick Cheney. After laughing my ass off at that one, I looked up other Lewis Black clips. He appears on The Daily Show regularly, so some of his clips are from there. So I started watching The Daily Show. Then I caught a bit of Colbert Report and enjoyed that too. So now Viacom has me watching two shows every night because I saw some funny clips on YouTube.

Obvious! (0, Offtopic)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690791)

This move is the result of a legal action [slashdot.org] !

My rights online (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690807)

I'm glad my rights to watch Comedy Central on the net have been restored. Yet another defeat for the fascist anti-Comedy police state. Free at last.

THIS Fp fOR GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16690861)

Awesome! (1)

RonaldReagan (112997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690869)

Now I can watch my favorite high rated shows, like "That's My Bush!" and the ill fated Comedy Central Roast of Pol Pot.

Think twice before you react (2, Insightful)

no_pets (881013) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690899)

Perhaps YouTube should have made an example of Viacom and not restored the clips on their own. This would be useful in making future requests from other parties think twice before requesting clips be pulled.

YouTube could have just told Viacom that the clips were pulled and that Viacom were free to upload them again assuming they specified that it was okay for the clips to be made available.

Re:Think twice before you react (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691031)

Right. And the next time Viacom found some of their content on YouTube, they'd file an expensive lawsuit instead of sending a polite takedown request letter. Somehow I don't think Google/YouTube really wants to go out of their way to piss off content owners, however much their customers might wish they did.

Re:Think twice before you react (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693497)

YouTube is protected as a content provider under the DMCA as long as they comply with requests to remove content.

Market segmentation (1)

nakedforjesus (73005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16690943)

I understand Viacom's concern about loss of income from iTunes but I doubt that it would be too great. Maybe they're just realizing that people who might want shell out two bucks(per show) for the convenience of iTunes will still do so. With YouTube you don't have that convenience(in most cases), you get an episode broken up into several clips *if* somebody even cared to upload it.
They also probably don't want to be seen as "bad guys" cracking down on filesharing.

I can't find the clips anywhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16690949)

I'm looking here [utube.com] . I guess the Internet really is just a bunch of tubes (or pipes, really). Now they're down!

Google and you-tube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691021)

Just read an interesting take on the google - youtube deal. http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/10/30/some-intima te-details-on-the-google-youtube-deal/ [blogmaverick.com]

Re:Google and you-tube (1)

mcguyver (589810) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691989)

Speculation on Google / YouTube "Hardball" [slashdot.org] Posted by kdawson on Tuesday October 31, @04:39PM

Welcome to (the day before) yesterday

Does Youtube REALLY delete? (1)

in2mind (988476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691033)

For now, at least, the clips are back--even the long ones, so get your Colbert fix on before Viacom has another change of heart.

Does all this mean that Youtube never 'really' deletes any clip a user deletes?

Re:Does Youtube REALLY delete? (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691477)

They probably really delete clips that the users delete, but only disable clips they're requested to take down, in case it turns out that the entity requesting it doesn't have the authority or something.

Re:Does Youtube REALLY delete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691977)

Good companies keep backups.

That wet, slurping sound you hear ... (1)

Dr. Smeegee (41653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691115)

... is the sound of Comedy Central's head leaving it's corporate sphincter [wikipedia.org] . Now if only if the rest of the sountrack was "Constipation Blues" [datacomm.ch] by Screamin' Jay Hawkins, my day would be complete.

They don't get restored to your "favorites" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691151)

They may have restored all of the clips, but they don't reappear in your "favorites" list - you're going to have to go back and "favorite" all of those clips again if you want to keep them bookmarked.

Which sucks.

Umm, not true for me? (1)

fernandoh26 (963204) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691171)

I uploaded my "South Park Reloaded" animation a few months ago and it was killed 2 days ago, and it has not come back?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=south+ park+reloaded&search=Search [youtube.com]

There are others who have uploaded my animation too, but their video is still on there. *scratches head*

What? (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691187)

You mean allowing people to see our shows whenever they want will get us more viewers? Quick! Put those clips back up!

This is why we teach grammar in 2nd grade (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691233)

Viacom is the parent company of Comedy Central, not YouTube (owned by Google), as the grammatical error in the summary implies.

Re:This is why we teach grammar in 2nd grade (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693577)

Mod parent up please -- This is an excellent point, the summary is very confusing if you don't really know the context.

Any publicity is good publicity (2, Informative)

kabz (770151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691321)

What next? Microsoft releases hax0r4d Vista to Pirate Bay?

It looks to me like Comedy Central subscribe to the axiom 'any usage is good usage'. ;-)

CC gets it! (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691345)

When it comes to stuff like "The Daily Show" or "Colbert," these are programs that get shown once, rerun once, and then are mostly never seen again purely because of the topical nature of the shows. This isn't the sort of thing that fills out a DVD box all that well, they aren't really going to continue to profit directly from the old content once it's been and gone. This is why clips that get "youtubed" or rerun by CC on their own site and occasional "best ofs," are really the only way for people to continue to dig the old clips and drum up enthusiasm for the next episodes.

CC has realized that either they work the "best of" angle solely on their own site, with however much manpower and costs that would entail, or let the fans do it themselves on YouTube. With YouTube, not only do they not deal with the workload, but the fans themselves are in charge of what is or isn't a "greatest hit." That's as it should be, and something that the content producers rarely if ever get right, since all they'd have to go on are surveys, focus groups, and other troublesome hit-or-miss schemes.

1. Let the fans do the work of hyping up the shows.
2. More hype = more audience for the next ones. There are no ???s.
3. Profit!

Re:CC gets it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693017)

1. Let the fans do the work of hyping up the shows.
2. More hype = more audience for the next ones. There are no ???s.
3. Profit!


Unfortunately, you're missing a key point. What it actually looks like is this:

1. Let the fans hype up the show on YouTube.
2. More hype for YouTube = more audience for the next ones on YouTube.
3. Profit for YouTube!

Tell me again how this is supposed to benefit the people who are actually doing the hard work of making these shows, or the people who are investing significant money in funding their production?

Re:CC gets it! (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693203)

Because more hype created by the clips on YouTube also creates more audience for the next ones on TV or iTunes. This doesn't concern the full episodes people upload to YouTube, it's about the shorter clips from the show.

From TFA: Numerous short clips did remain available on the site, fueling speculation that Viacom was only concerned about longer clips.

The clips are what brought me in. (1)

Stopher2475 (780930) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691435)

I know this is annecdotal but I didn't start watching The Daily Show and the Report until after I saw a bunch of good YouTube clips. Now I make sure to catch them every night.

MINUS 2, TROL%L) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691491)

Run Doggie Run (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691517)

Run over here doggie. Now run over here. Good doggie!! Now pay me.

Pleasant News (1)

ewhac (5844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691547)

I'm pleased to hear the Comedy Central stuff will be reappearing on GoogTube. Comedy Central has clips available on their own Web site, but the player is absolute crap. I never got it to work. YouTube's works, so this is a happy thing.

Schwab

Why they didn't embrace this from the start... (1)

Reidsb (944156) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691561)

...I'll never know. Such a great way to promote their shows. They should be uploading these themselves every week.

Re:Why they didn't embrace this from the start... (1)

Legatic (318255) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691819)

they didn't start doing it themselves because they aren't making any advertising revenue from it

yeah, it is a good way to promote general awareness, but the money to make those shows has to come from somewhere

Re:Why they didn't embrace this from the start... (1)

Reidsb (944156) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692191)

Run some quick little adds before the clips. Or on the side. Perhaps Google adding their sidebar ads to youtube will solve this problem.

I think the ArsTechnica report is wrong (2, Interesting)

reifman (786887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691893)

There was another bigger purge last night: 78% of Daily Show Clips Missing from YouTube [idealog.us] I wrote a script to analyze this ... Of 897 Daily Show videos on YouTube sampled, 699 were missing or broken. That's nearly 78% of Daily Show videos now taken down for alleged copyright infringement without any regard for fair use from what I can tell. More commentary on the week's events here: Truthiness is scarce at Viacom and YouTube this week [newscloud.com]

moD up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691907)

I'm surprised (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692103)

I'm not surprised that they decided to make them available again. I'm surprised, though that they didn't leave them off YouTube and instead put them up officially on Google Video. I'd guess they have better encodings of their videos than are on youtube (at least based on how the copies of Weird Al's videos that he put up himself are so much better than the copies put up by other people). And if they put it on Google Video, they could probably work out a deal similar to this one [slashdot.org] and get some of the revenue from advertizing by the hosting site.

It's just a bit odd for a copyright holder to specificly permit somebody to distribute a copy of something acquired from an unlicensed third party.

It's down (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692449)

Youtube seems to be down.

here [utube.com]

No longer a need (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692559)

I just noticed yesterday that comedycentral.com has redone their entire web site, so that it now actually works. I even got several of my browsers to give me URLs for their clips.

So it's now not necessary to have them on sites like youtube. They finally wised up and realized that their idiotic site mis-design was driving people away to the copycat sites, and losing them all the eyes that they were obviously trying to get looking at their ads.

This is a disappointment in some circles, actually. Namely, the web-software testing crowd is disappointed. It used to be that if you wanted an example of a recalcitrant site that did nearly everything in the worst possible way, you just typed in "comedycentral.com" and voila! More worst-case test material than you could ever hope to find anywhere else.

But that's all gone now. We testers will have to go back to collecting awful examples on a piecemeal basis, and hosting them on our own sites. Maybe we can get a discussion going of the old idea of having a test site explicitly for holding examples of everything wrong that has ever been found on any other site.

Do you think the comedycentral.com folks would donate a snapshot of their old site as the seed material for such a test site?

(It was especially fun to point out that the comedycentral.com ads all worked, while the "content" didn't. This was conclusive proof that they did know exactly what they were doing, and the fact that the "content" didn't work other than sporadically wasn't an accident at all. ;-)

I wonder what this means for Utube... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693291)

I saw in the news a company named Utube that is or is considering suing YouTube to "force YouTube to change its name or to get YouTube to help us find a new domain name", so I heard in the news.

One would think that companies with conflicting names would have an arbiter or someplace to submit their name so that a heuristic or some-such program would be Google-like and display as screen saying:

"Your request is remarkably similar to the name of a valid company that is receiving an extraordinary number of of irrelevant or non-transacting visits. Do you really want to visit:

O Utube, the machinery and tubing manufacturer or

O YouTube, the Comedy Central video clips site?

Please choose."

Thank you, and from all of us, our apologies for intercepting and delaying your page request.

Jeez UGLY Louise. How FRAKIN' hard is that to do? It would cut down on frivolous or almost-valid-but-avoidable lawsuits.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>