×

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!

Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the moment-of-zen-everybody dept.

Google 225

AlHunt writes "According to the folks at PCWorld Viacom has publicly scolded YouTube for continuing to host throngs of Viacom videos without permission. They are demanding that over 100,000 of its clips be removed from the site. This includes content from Comedy Central (no more Daily Show), MTV, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, and VH1. YouTube has acknowledged receiving a DMCA request from Viacom, and the article notes what a dire precedent this could be if Google can't reach an agreement with Viacom and its fellow IP holders."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

225 comments

A Series of Tubes.... (1)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869482)

What use are the internets without my daily fix of Stewart and Colbert?

Could've been worse (2, Insightful)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869636)

At least they didn't go Disney on YouTube and demand X dollars per every ten seconds of clip on the site.

Who didn't see this coming (3, Informative)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869488)

You need to make deals with copywright holders to show/sell their product online. The hard part is negotiating deals with everyone, not just having a site that supports video.

You don't. (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869700)

Actually you don't. The DMCA says that the user that upload the videos are the ones who may be breaching copyright. Online Service Providers such as YouTube have safe harbour from copyright liability provided that they remove content if and when they receive a take down notice from the copyright holder. What YouTube are doing is perfectly legal as it is.

Reaching agreement with the big media companies might make reduce YouTube's workload and reduce news stories such as this one. But it's absolutely not necessary.

Re:You don't. (2, Insightful)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869720)

But, honestly - what does the DMCA have to do with this anyway? This is a plain old copyright case (no measures taken to secure content on tv).

Re:You don't. (2, Insightful)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869800)

The DMCA is about more than the anti-circumvention clause. It also lays out a framework for how to get your copywritten material removed from (allegedly) infringing sites or distribution points, and the conditions service providers must adhere to when notified of (alleged) infringement.

Re:You don't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870164)

It's copyRIGHTED, not copyWRITTEN. "Copyright", not "copywrite".

Re:You don't. (1)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869810)

DMCA covers a number of different sections of Title 17 of the US Code. Safe Harbor for ISPs is covered under section 512. The part you're thinking of is the anti-circumvention provision of section 1201.

Re:You don't. (2, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870730)

DMCA is copyright on steroids...No wait. DMCA is copyright with syphilis...rabies?...dysentery. Haemorrhoids. Worms. Fleas. Crabs!

Re:You don't. (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869770)

The other side is that they have to make a real effort. The way they are currently set up is just lip service to the requirements. Don't be surprised if Google gets clubbed heavily for this in the future. After being told to remove a clip, if Google let's me just reupload the same clip they aren't really living up to the requirements that give them a safe harbor from liability.

Re:You don't. (3, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870638)

There are tens of thousands of videos on the site. How is Google supposed to police them all? Removing existing clips is about the best they can do, and maybe banning a user who uploaded copyrighted content, to address your reupload thing. I suppose they could filter certain titles like 'Daily Show' but then the uploader could use 'Daily_show' instead. It'd be pretty hard to keep it all off, without a full time staff of video reviewers.

Re:Who didn't see this coming (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870144)

I'm so sick of these whiny megacorps complaining about youtube and fan sites infringing on their copyrights.
Don't they realize that this will only generate interest in their product? If anything they should be paying youtube for advertising.

Re:Who didn't see this coming (1)

deevnil (966765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870378)

What about comedycentral's elite guerilla marketing campaign..

In a post 9/11 world, who needs to pay for advertising anymore?

Bad for Viacom (5, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869516)

Honestly, the reason I watch the Colbert Report is Youtube. If I hadn't seen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I might not watch the show. I mean, they should complain about full episodes, but if there's 3 minutes of Colbert or Stewart on there, it's just advertising to watch those shows.

Re:Bad for Viacom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869540)

Didn't Comedy Central bitch @ Youtube, and then back down when the realized that Youtube was free advertising?

Re:Bad for Viacom (4, Informative)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869612)

Viacom IS Comedy Central. But you're right that lots of Comedy Central people seem to be savvy to this. When Colbert jested that Youtube owed him $400 million or whatever, he meant the opposite.

I thought so, too (3, Interesting)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869876)

Viacom has threatened YouTube before, and I remember hearing that the Comedy Central clips had gone back up. Here's the previous coverage from Slashdot,

YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA [slashdot.org]

YouTube Restores Comedy Central Clips [slashdot.org]

Apparently it wasn't as clear cut as I'd recalled, though, and Viacom never actually gave YouTube permission to put the clips back up, they were simply interested in reaching an agreement ($$$). Apparently the recent threats came about because the talks fell through.

Re:Bad for Viacom (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870002)

Viacom does not object to their content being on YouTube as such. What they don't agree with is that YouTube gets ad revenue from their videos, and Viacom doesn't get a cut. YouTube (Google) has already negotiated deals to pay a portion of ad revenue to other content providers, such as CBS. Viacom, however, feels (probably rightly so) that their content provides far more traffic to YouTube than the other providers that have deals, and so they want a sweeter deal than the others got. Until they have that deal, they will continue to make YouTube take down their content.

It's not so much that Viacom hates their stuff being on the Internet, it's that they don't like other people posting their stuff on the Internet without getting a piece of the pie themselves.

Re:Bad for Viacom (1)

loganrapp (975327) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870108)

And this is where I find a light at the end of the tunnel with YouTube.

If the big companies get their share of revenue (and as it seems like we're moving more toward uploaders also getting a piece), we can keep along with the chaotic freedom that YT is so well known for.

Most of it's crap, but the diamonds in the rough are priceless.

Re:Bad for Viacom (4, Interesting)

modecx (130548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870718)

But they don't stop to think: "Hey, someone liked this part of this program enough to go through the effort of editing our clip, and uploading the clip to let other people watch. His time wasn't free, and he deemed that our product had enough value that other people should also enjoy it. We aught to let those other people watch it, so they will be more inclined to watch our show live when they see it on their cable box, and those eyes will see our ads, too!"

I mean, it's one thing to upload a whole program to these sites, those videos should, and undoubtedly will be taken down as they are uploaded... A smart company, however, would KILL for advertising like this. It's free, it takes no effort beyond the initial investment whatsoever, and it's highly effective because it targets a niche market which is proven to enjoy your product. If anything, Viacom's stockholders aught to be lynching the management for not figuring out a way to make this phenomenon *more effective*, to establish more mindshare, to draw in more viewers, to up the ratings, and to make more money in the end!

Re:Bad for Viacom (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870516)

Doesn't matter--regardless if you discovered Colbert on YouTube, you would have discovered him sooner of later.


With our information wants to be free mentality, good, quality content will always be discovered and exploited--you would have discovered it elsewhere. It's just that free services for ads forces us to consume [content] faster than before. As for advertising flat out, it's a chicken-n-egg issue.

Re:Bad for Viacom (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870672)

Doesn't matter--regardless if you discovered Colbert on YouTube, you would have discovered him sooner of later.

Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to say. If I've got no way to find him, then I might not. Information can be free because we share it. I mean, something like Colbert or Stewart is only funny for a little while - I'm not going to get a laugh off of Bush jokes in 2015. In fact, most of the comedy there has a half-life of weeks if not days. Therefore, making my discovery of the material faster is pretty important.

Since i know people are thinking it... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869524)

...part of me wants to say "fuck 'em"
because someone will re-upload those clips whether Viacom likes it or not.

OTOH, I understand why GooTube doesn't want to piss off the big players in the media industry & will eventually compromise in one way or another.

Re:Since i know people are thinking it... (1)

vistic (556838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870784)

Really the only way these sites that allow user uploads to not ever violate any copyrights is to just shut down completely.

Of course that sucks and the alternative sites suck even more.

But if YouTube shut down that would also be the end of a lot of cool non-copyrighted stuff... there's lots of things I think to find, so I search on YouTube and lo and behold, there it is.

I think the major corporations should just shut up, for the good of the people.

Drop them (3, Interesting)

Zonekeeper (458060) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869558)

Google should use the enormous power it wields. Tell Viacom they are being dropped immediately from any search results. Anything that references them or leads to any of their sites or properties, are effectively GONE. That's what I'd do, and Viacom would have no recourse, no legal action. Google doesn't HAVE to return search results for them. Then we'd find out how fast the fat little corporate piggies would squeal when the traffic and subsequent dollars they get from having visitors find them for whatever the myriad of reasons that they would be being searched for. Of course, Google won't do this, because, well, they're corporate screws now too. Sure would be nice though.

Viacom has rights (3, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869562)

Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights. Viacom is operating from a position of having the law behind them. Because of that, they get to dictate terms. If they don't like the offer they can tell YouTube to fuck off and die. Maybe the folks uploading the content are ultimately at fault for the copyright violations but YouTube has the responsibility for removing that material at Viacom's demand. Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

Re:Viacom has rights (4, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869786)

Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one. Viacom can't say, "Please remove all Daily Show content," or, "Please remove all of our content." It just doesn't work that way.

This is one reason that negotiating a deal would be beneficial to both parties. There are many more users willing to upload content than Viacom employees working to search it out, or Youtube employees capable of removing it. The money lost in fighting the infringement is probably significant.

That said, as long as it continues to be (financially) worth it, Youtube will continue to host videos and will simply have to deal with the takedown notices. And Viacom (and other copyright holders) will have to continue to monitor these sites for infringing content.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869830)

"Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one."

I agree completely. While Viacom has the right to ask for the material to be removed...it's their unfortunate (or not) responsibility to make the requests. If it bothers them enough, they'll sit back down and the table and compromise. However, the ball is in their court, it's their choice to compromise or just be dicks.

Viacom has rights-Barrels,apples,spoiled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869834)

"That said, as long as it continues to be (financially) worth it, Youtube will continue to host videos and will simply have to deal with the takedown notices. And Viacom (and other copyright holders) will have to continue to monitor these sites for infringing content."

And everyone's costs rises because the minority have a "fuck you!" attitude.

Slanting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869804)

Once it is out there, it isn't "yours" anymore.

I know, legally it still is. But given the modern technological landscape, applying the familiar concepts of ownership to information is a non sequitor. The laws may have made sense once upon a time, but no longer. Now they do more harm than good.

The problem isn't that people duplicate data. The problem is that other people think they shouldn't be allowed to.

Re:Slanting (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870066)

Well, that's fine if all the future of video holds is watching people like your next door neighbor do silly stuff on the Internet that is equally entertaining as watching him live over the back fence.

Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

Re:Slanting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870112)

Nobody is going to spend a lot of time, effort, and money producing entertainment programs they don't make any money on.

Do you honestly believe that charging per copy is the only way to make money on entertainment programs? You really need to open your eyes. There is a whole new game forming and people who don't know how to play are going to get left far, far behind.

Re:Slanting (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870336)

Thanks for the fact-free post. Even if I don't "get it" (assuming there's really something to get), I'm not a content producer, so I'm not part of "the game" and thus unworried about being left behind.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

SocratesJedi (986460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869812)

Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

Such viewpoints undermine the value of information creation and distribution. Most of the time when I speak it's because I think I have at least some bit of insight that might be valuable to contribute to others. Don't you think there is a sacrifice of credibility when the motive for content creation is no longer dialog or social interaction, but is rather profit? Two questions we should answer: (1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?, and (2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869914)

Whoa there Socrates!!!

"Such viewpoints undermine the value of information creation and distribution. Most of the time when I speak it's because I think I have at least some bit of insight that might be valuable to contribute to others. Don't you think there is a sacrifice of credibility when the motive for content creation is no longer dialog or social interaction, but is rather profit? Two questions we should answer: (1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?, and (2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"

We're talking about Viacom. Their whole BUSINESS is based on creating and selling content. Their information ain't free!!! Just because I can rip off their content and put it on the intarnet it should be free? Don't think so Sparky...

Now I'll try to answer your questions...
"(1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?"
-I expect to pay people for content they create unless they willingly give it to me for free. Just like I buy books at the bookstore, magazines from the news stand, and internet service from my ISP.
"(2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
-Buy yourself a country and become a dictator. Then, you can allow anything your citizens create, or you can steal from other countries, to be free (within the boundaries of your country). If you choose to join the "free" world, that requires following their LAWS.

Re:Viacom has rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869864)

You mean a shitty low-res copy of my content which is acting as highly effective viral marketing for my actual content, and is being hosted and distributed at no cost to me? Damn, that sounds horrible.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869934)

Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights.

Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped!

Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!

And somehow, we'll convince ourselves that it was in viacom's best interest, because we saw the clips and then watched the shows on TV... even if that's BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music...

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870034)

"Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped!
Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!
And somehow, we'll convince ourselves that it was in viacom's best interest, because we saw the clips and then watched the shows on TV... even if that's BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music..."

Slughead and shithead, great band name! ...thanks dude/ette. I think we're singing the same song. Let's copyright it and sue the fuckers who steal it! Thanks for your insightful irony and sarcasm. :)

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870068)

Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube. If I happened to have an interest in a television program or a movie and someone wants to take a 3min blip-vert and post it on youtube, I'd be pleased as punch. The only reason I saw the new Pink Panther movie was because I saw the "english lesson" [youtube.com] on youtube.

The big theme in this thread is "free advertising". It's rather way VCRs were tolerated and in many cases encouraged in the 1980s. It was a cheap way for a person to buld up a video library, and usually there was an into from the approperate station, such as HBO or Showtime. How many people got cable just so they could watch what their friends taped, or better still tape things beyond antenna quality.

I'm not saying Viacom isn't within their rights. I am saying in all likelyhood the increased viewship from youtube blip-verts results in higher commercial value of AV products.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870284)

"Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?

That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube."

We're mostly on the same page but I think you and others are missing a crucial point I'm trying to make..."if you could OTHERWISE get paid for it". Yeah, free publicity is GREAT!!! But, we're talking about Viacom. They have plenty of publicity and a big following already. If my small, minor, mostly unnoticed content was getting play I'd be happy as shit. Viacom is huge already. They are a business and expect their content to bring in revenue. They have to protect their content. If they don't then their revenue declines and so do they. The stockholders are ones they are trying to protect...and, some of us might even own some of their stock.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870390)

We're mostly on the same page but I think you and others are missing a crucial point I'm trying to make..."if you could OTHERWISE get paid for it". Yeah, free publicity is GREAT!!! But, we're talking about Viacom. They have plenty of publicity and a big following already. If my small, minor, mostly unnoticed content was getting play I'd be happy as shit. Viacom is huge already. They are a business and expect their content to bring in revenue. They have to protect their content. If they don't then their revenue declines and so do they. The stockholders are ones they are trying to protect...and, some of us might even own some of their stock.

Viacom is huge. So was Royal Crown (RC) cola, but they didn't *really* make it to the 80s cola wars. While they had a huge market share at one point in history, they decided rather than spending money promoting their product they AFAIK saved their money and put it into their product. They lost their marketshare and were bought out.

I'm empathetic as to protecting the shareholder's interests. But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising. The nice thing about free advertising is the fact that it's "free", otherwise you'd have to pay for it. Even if most of the commercials for the dailyshow are done on viacom owned stations, that's airtime which could have been sold to someone else.

You are right, it boils down to what's in the best interest of the shareholders. The real question is does the increased viewership of the youtube blip-verts of the dailyshow increase the value of the show enough, or is there more money to be made by either charging for it or showing it with your own adverts.

Re:Viacom has rights (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870480)

"But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising."

    I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!" There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world. They don't need the publicity or their shit wouldn't be so popular on YouTube in the first place.

Dear Viacom (5, Insightful)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869578)

Our business model is to host content made by others and become fabulously wealthy. If you don't allow us to freely show the material you've paid for our bottom line will be negatively impacted. Please reconsider, for at least as long as it takes to sell our Google stock.

Sincerely,

YouTube

Re:Dear Viacom (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869658)

Dear Youtube,

Our business model is to provide content which is trivially easy for people to duplicate and distribute, but to sue anyone who actually does that. You are next on our hit list.

Plan A was to take control of all the hardware in the world away from its rightful owners, but that didn't work out so well. This has left us with no alternative but to sue you and everyone else.

Sincerely,

Viacom

The sad thing about YouTube... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869988)

The sad thing about YouTube is that there are a lot of cool videos that people make themselves for YouTube, but they're bloody impossible to find and YouTube doesn't seem to care as their business model absolutely seems to be making money from illegal uploads. They won't remove illegal uploads with anything short of a DMCA notice. I know because I submitted 50 such videos as a "terms of service" violation only to check two weeks later and find that only 12 had been removed, half with an 'this specific copyright holder forced us to delete this video' message whose only purpose can be to shame a copyright holder for enforcing their rights.

I've seen some wonderful original videos on YouTube but it's also taken weeks of searching to find them and I've only found about ten. The search engine is only good when you know the title of what you are looking for, and that's only true with illegal uploads. The most viewed ranking is useless because people watch videos because they think they might be good much more often than they watch them because they know they are good. The video ratings are useless unless your preferences are exactly the same as an average person. So the result is, even if you want to use YouTube for what it was intended for, it's still a hundred times easier to use it illegally.

Viacom... (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869580)

fucking it up for the rest of us since 1971 (or 2005, depending on how you want to judge these things).

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869694)

fucking it up for the rest of us since 1971
Yeah, but you want to fuck it up for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? You think those guys and their staffs should work for free to keep you entertained?

Re:Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free? (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869750)

Yeah, but you want to fuck it up for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? You think those guys and their staffs should work for free to keep you entertained?
No, but i also wasn't aware that entire episodes were being posted on YouTube. Wait, they're not. a 3 minute clip of a show isn't going to hurt Viacom's bottom line any more than someone skipping the commercials on their TiVo.

Re:Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert work for free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869944)

no reason to be here (todd.ferguson@gmail.com) wrote: Wait, they're not. a 3 minute clip of a show isn't going to hurt Viacom's bottom line any more than someone skipping the commercials on their TiVo.
Really?

A search of "Daily Show" on You Tube ( "http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Daily +Show") reveals

Bill Gates on the Daily Show 09:25 minutes
Barack Obama on Daily Show 06:40 minutes
Daily Show weighed in on FOX's Obama smear 04:02 minutes
Social Networking 06:01 minutes
The Problem with E-voting machines. 06:52 minutes
Matt Couch (WM 1997) on The Daily Show 04:30 minutes
TDS Analyzes Bush's Escalation Speech - Part 1 of 2 09:26 minutes
Sen. Edwards on the Daily Show, 11-14-06 (Complete interview.) 06:40 minutes
The Daily Show - Star Trek Theory 04:35 minutes

Looks like entire bits are posted up there.

Dire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869616)

Nah. That wonderful piece of legislation the Congresses (is that like the Internets?) gave the corporations lets copyright content go right up on the web liability-free so long as it is taken down upon reception of specific notice of what infringing content to remove. YouTube complies with these requests like gangbusters (very well). Not to worry -- if Viacom does not like the free advertising, that is their loss. YouTube is a joy of time wasting (just like real TV!) without the copyrighted content of Viacom. I like the stuff made by real people (like you or me) better than the stuff made by corporations anyways. It is fun to sort the wheat out from the chaff. And to see what is essentially a new medium for people to express themselves develop.

Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show (2, Insightful)

kelv (305876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869626)

With about 10 lines of perl you can rip down all of The Daily Show clips from the akamai servers

Re:Who needs YouTube to get The Daily Show (2, Funny)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869716)

Rumor has it that all of the major bit torrent sites have all of the Daily Shows soon after they are aired, complete and ad-free. But, that's just a rumor I heard...

'Dire Precedent' ? (0, Redundant)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869638)

Right, because never before have we confronted a case where one party is looking to make easy money off of another party's work without permission under the guise of being hip rebels. Puh-leeease.

Re:'Dire Precedent' ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870026)

Remember this is Slashdot. Content creators are the bad guys. Content leechers are the heroes. HTH.

Puh-leeease? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870380)

Are you gay?

What's your going rate for going down btw?

No more lazy man's BitTorrent (4, Interesting)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869672)

This just means that you have to find and download a high quality version of the show that you want to watch. You can still get it for free, but you have to work a very little for it. It will only stop piracy committed by the very lazy or very stupid.

This move helps keep YouTube pure. Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content. Until the RIAA/MPAA copyrights their faces. You thought that we would only get mandatory full body coverings with a totalitarian Islamic government. Wait until you have to wear a burqa to avoid copyright violations.

No more greedy man's BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869904)

I suppose you thought that button pushing would get you an insightful. Viacom is perfectly within they're rights, which I'm sure pisses off the "content wants to be free" aka "we're too lazy to create our own original content. can we have yours?" crowd.I'm sure it will not stop piracy any more than police will stop all murderers, or permissions on Linux will stop all hacking. However the pirates have no business dragging YouTube into their personal war. If they want content that bad, then they should host it on their own servers.

Re:No more greedy man's BitTorrent (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870230)

If they want content that bad, then they should host it on their own servers.

I think many of them are doing that just now. A month ago, I've heard of an open source video site system that does much of what YouTube does. I'm sure many people are using such software to their own copyright infringing desires.

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870248)

Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content. Until the RIAA/MPAA copyrights their faces

To be fair, videos of treadmill-dancing, mock solo light saber fights and soda fountain videos will also be allowed so long as the music is licenced for redistribution like that. Those people can use podsafe or creative commons music for that end anyways.

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (1)

drix (4602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870258)

You don't even have to really look. Colbert Report and Daily Show via RSS, downloaded automatically in the middle of the night and ready hot and steaming when I wake up each morning. Ta-da [tvrss.net]!

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (2, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870274)

This move helps keep YouTube pure. Only people who take a picture of themselves everyday for years will be permitted to post content.
Until tattoo artists start asserting their copyrights against people who post pictures of themselves including said tattoos!

Re:No more lazy man's BitTorrent (1)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870468)

Actually there is a more important feature of youtube that makes it attractive piracy-wise. It's completely anonymous, so you don't have to worry about getting a DMCA letter from your ISP. Having gotten said letter from a BT download (I also noticed Jerry from PA got one :D) let me tell you this is a fairly significant benefit. Youtube is pretty useless in many regards, but in terms of Comedy Central content (which is so widely available on it), it is piracy done right.

None of this of course has anything to do with whether Youtube is hurting Viacom's bottom line, which I suspect it is not. Catching the best of Colbert and Jon is good advertisement.

They better shape up (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869690)

or google will buy them and even worse refuse to deploy golden parachutes to the terminated executive team

The takedown is already happening... (3, Informative)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869704)

Lots of content disappeared yesterday. A lot of it was Viacom stuff. I'm fully expecting more of my favorites to come up with "content removed" notices.

Viacom has been known for its actions in the past. For example: yanking Ren & Stimpy from its creators because Viacom wanted more control. This is par for the course with these folks.

Re:The takedown is already happening... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869922)

Why don't you try watching some original content instead of what big media is already pushing at you on TV? That's what the real strength of YouTube is - giving exposure to independent content creators. I hate it when great ideas like this get overrun with people that think they're doing something "useful" by uploading all the same shows that are already on network TV and DVD.

I like the trolls, but the trolls don't like me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17869880)

I like the trolls, but the trolls don't like me.

Viacom is being stupid (2, Insightful)

dgun (1056422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869902)

Short clips of their programs are just free advertising and add to the popularity of the shows. I can understand wanting to eliminate whole episodes, however.

The Essence of YouTube (1)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869948)


Is unmanaged user uploads.

Did anyone not see a potential problem with this?

They're going to start revenue sharing (1)

joejoejoejoe (231600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869972)

Google mentioned recently that they will start revenue sharing for content providers, ie posters, on youtube.

If all it takes to get paid is to copy clips off of tv and then post them on youtube, don't you see a problem? What viacom needs to do is ban all viacom content and then post it themselves, and get the revenue.

-Joejoejoejoe

The ugly truth (4, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17869998)

Viacom owns the material and they can do what they want with it. Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it. They may not charge to watch the videos but they use them to create value for the company. Viacom may actually want to leave the clips on Youtube but I'm guessing their lawyers advised that it sets a dangerous president. If they allow the clips they may loose control of the shows themselves. In some ways this is up to the court system and where they draw the line. Viacom can provide them with clips but it gets dicey when some one other than Viacom posts the clips without Viacom's permission. Whoever puts the money into producing the material should control it. If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more.

Re:The ugly truth (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870188)

it sets a dangerous president

So true. We already have a stupid President, don't want a dangerous one now, do we? Oh wait...

Re:The ugly truth - fair use (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870218)

Viacom is getting greedy. Fair use allows for clips, etc. Viacom could bitch if the entire show was uploaded, but copyright is not ownership, it is just exclusive right to publish for a limited time ( well, sorry Mickey ) with the ability of others to use excerpts, and make parodies.

There is no such thing as IP OWNERSHIP.

I hope Google fights this, but I am sure they will just settle with the whiners.

Cheers

Re:The ugly truth (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870224)

youtube must take down the material when presented with a DMCA takedown notice, not whenever some lawyer from viacom gets his panties in a bunch

1) No. 2) It's a negotiating tactic. (2, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870470)

Youtube didn't pay to produce it so they have no right to benefit financially from it.

You know, that simply doesn't reflect how the economy works. If I put up a cinema, there's no reason, moral, legal or otherwise, why you shouldn't open up a restaurant next door and make a profit from the customers I draw. True, you have no positive right to do so, but there's no restriction on such activity either. Do you want to live in a world in which companies and individuals can control all positive externalities of their actions? As Lemley [ssrn.com] explains, monopolies are the best way to achieve that kind of control. The pernicious idea that copyright confers an exclusive right to profits (both direct and indirect) is at variance with almost all other market activity.

Whoever puts the money into producing the material should control it. If you make something it belongs to you unless you give or sell the rights to some one else. That isn't copyright that's been true for roughly twelve thousands years or more.

Where on earth does this come from? Market economies and the labor theory of value are a modern phenomena. Most societies in history have been organized quite differently, with vastly different conceptions of property and ownership. (Your claim preceeds the earliest writing by thousands of years!)

If you ask me, Viacom's action is a negotiating tactic. They know they benefit from the distribution of their programing. But they also know there's money to be made here, so they want as big a cut as possible. Both sides are in a contest to determine how to divide up the pie - which really comes down to a question of relative strength and weakness, not right and wrong.

the sad part is (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870008)

Viacomm is too f*ing stupid to realize they get a massive ratings boost from You Tube. Both Colbert and Stewart not only regularly mention the site, they obviously use it for show content.

I think they know this quite well. (2)

mcg1969 (237263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870270)

But they also know that the value that YouTube is creating with their service is gigantic. That is: sure, YouTube is sending Viacom some free business---but YouTube has the potential to make far more than that themselves.

Put another way, YouTube has far more to lose here than Viacom does.

So Viacom is in fact quite smart to push hard for some sort of revenue stream from YouTube for their content.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870116)

In Soviet Russia, Youtube removes YOU!

Wait, you? Like removes You? You what? Youtube? Man, no wonder communism fell.

The Internet is the problem (3, Insightful)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870118)

Viacom's action could establish a precedent and have serious consequences for YouTube ...

There may be consequences for youtube but perhaps the proverbial cat is out of the figurative bag. The real problem here is that the Internet is such an effective and efficient distribution system. I find myself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because it's there when I want it. I don't have to read a program guide or program a TV. I don't even have to own a TV.

If what happened after Napster [wikipedia.org] (as a file-sharing service) was shut-down is any indication, the forces of supply and demand combined with the ubiquity and amorphous characteristics of the Internet are unstoppable, even if youtube were shut down tomorrow, you could expect to see the Daily Show popping up more prevalently on P2P, BitTorrent, or some obscure Russian site.

And if the failure of all those DMCA P2P lawsuits to stop file-sharing from reaching an all-time high is any indication of the world in which we live, people are going to get the content one way or another, no matter what the copyright holders or the law says. All moral judgments aside, that just a fact based in reality.

Re:The Internet is the problem (1)

drix (4602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870278)

The Daily Show is already on BitTorrent within about 2 hours of its East Coast airing. It takes me about a half hour to download, it's a digital satellite rip and when I play it on my television it actually looks better than cable since I don't have digital cable. Ditto the Colbert Report. I'm a cable subscriber but I don't have TiVo and not having to stay up late to watch the episodes, and/or being able to take them on the road with me, makes all the difference. I don't know if what I'm doing is illegal but it's insanely easy and convenient. I certainly don't feel like it's immoral. I have a hard time seeing Viacom or any other corporation being able to put a stop this sort of thing. It certainly isn't working for the music industry. Or should I say didn't.

Re:The Internet is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870426)

"If what happened after Napster (as a file-sharing service) was shut-down is any indication..."

Actually.. taking out Napster was incredibly effective. No copyrighted music illegal distribution service has even remotely achieved the same kind of mainstream penetration that Napster had. iTunes stepped up and was able to capitalize on the void created.

Re:The Internet is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870708)

Well, gnutella alone has over 2 million users, between 800,000 to 1 million users are online at any one time, not counting eMule, eDonkey, Freenet, etc.. But if everyone from just gnutella shares one file it makes for a pretty large collection. It's been said many times in the mainstream press that P2P file sharing is at an all time high. Of course their are more internet users now than there were back when napster was p2p.

Do you have stats for the old napster on which you base your comment? It would be interesting to compare.

Re:The Internet is the problem (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870444)

I find myself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because it's there when I want it. I don't have to read a program guide or program a TV.

No, you find yourself watching more and more news content on youtube simply because you have no life.

Legal videos were erroniously taken down as well (4, Informative)

supersat (639745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870150)

It looks like Viacom automated their DMCA complaints, and included several videos in their DMCA notifications that they clearly don't hold the copyright to. One of the affected users also writes a Harvard law blog, and posted about it [harvard.edu].

PSS (Pretty Simple Solution) (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870296)

...and it's going to happen, because, well.. we always have.

Find a new, more neutral video transport method.

Could someone make a YT web "site" based on the Bittorrent protocol?

Viacom is the ones with the crappy keyboards (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870318)

I'm pretty sure it's them I can blame carpel tunnel on.

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870488)

"I'm pretty sure it's them (Viacom) I can blame carpel tunnel on."

Jon Stewart is hot, but not that hot.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17870578)

..Viacom tells all their serious fan base to go take a hike! Amazing marketing savvy there!

For whom the bell tolls (1)

t00le (136364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17870594)

Hopefully at some point traditional media catches up with modern technology and the iPod generation.

I for one am disappointed in Viacom's stance and hope the masses show their distaste. At least now I can throw Viacom into the same boat as Clear Channel (Shitty products with repetitive advertising) for alienating their consumers.

I say fuck 'em and I will now tune to something else when I DO have a chance to watch TV. Why would I want to catch-up on something I may have missed when I COULD impact their (Viacom) bottom line and the ever important advertisers (who force feed crappy products made in China down our throats via repetition).

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...