Comments on: Why it matters what Chad Hurley watches

What happens if YouTube's employees watched pirated videos or even uploaded them? What happens if some of those videos were posted by Viacom?

[mpitogo]

Viacom can stand to grow up in the digital age and pick up where youtube left of and fight fire with fire.

[paulsecic]

How can media cos profit from clips of Cab Calloway, Fats Waller ETC. Are they shown on TV? Answer: NO.

[smokified]

Viacom should stop whining like a bunch of pansy ********. Google is not responsible for the actions of others period. We don't sue craftsmand for making hammers when some psycho uses one to smash someones face, or we don't sue easton when somebody uses a bat to smash up a car, why sue google when somebody uses their product for uses that are illegal?

Policing is for the police. Obeying the law is up to every individual. Holding one accountable for the actions of others will NEVER EVER solve anything. Has the overall maturity and education level of this country really stuped below grade school levels?

[alflanagan]

It doesn't matter who "polices" copyrighted content, it's not going to work. The cat's out of the bag, the ship has already sailed, the horse has left the barn. Adapt or die.

[smokified]

Right. It is the individual's responsibility to obey or not obey the law and to accept the consequensces of their actions.

[pho0ze]

Has the film industry not learned a thing from the music industry?

This is the RIAA riots all over again. Guess who won?

Yup, consumers.

[smokified]

Yeah, this could be Viacom trying to take a bite of Google's pie. This is a childish waste of time and it does not belong in our court system.

[jamalystic]

I don't consumers stand to win in this case. I even believe that such friction among the major digital players will undermine every privacy fight we may want to put up. But this whole saga is just an ice berg of the coopyright dilemma we are now facing:Why 'Rethinking' Copyright Law Is a Huge Mistake(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=155800&F_src=flftwo)

[Renegade Knight]

Why would an employe know who has the rights to distribute (or permission, or fair use) than anyone else? They wouldn't unless their specific job was to confirm that and they had the training and expertise to do so.

[ralfthedog]

Even if they had the knowledge, would they have the authority. The janitor may watch Barny on his break, that does not give him the right or authority to delete the show.

[smokified]

This is also another example of the stupidity of this issue. This whole thing is just not realistic.

[marc_90292]

I entirely agree with the statement that VIACOM or its subs and employees give an unconditional license to embed material posted by them on websites. If that is not what they want then all they have to do is disallow embedding, as many already do.
However, using YouTube as a cheap advertising site and then complaining that coyrights are being violated if somebody watches the videos Viacom employees place on view and license to use - that is the peak of hipocracy, an abuse of judicial process, and frivolous.

[smokified]

I agree and once again it seems that the government that is built "by the people, for the people" is not listening to the people.

[Alessandro Machi]

I pretty much agree with marc_90292.

I would also like to add that Viacom and others studios should be paying a fee to youtube for allowing them the freedom to see what the public wants and likes BEFORE they commit to new talent contracts. Youtube also allows them to evaluate the staying power of existing talent.

What we are witnessing is the studio trying to put YouTube on the defensive for illegal uploads of their product (a valid concern), WHILE THE STUDIOS IGNORE THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT they receive by having the ability to see how quickly their product goes viral on Youtube.

Talk about job security, if I worked for Viacom I would always look to Youtube for trends before I made a move. Are you a wannabe actor who is going to be the next Tom Cruise? Well, don't bother showing up to the studios UNLESS you have at least one really big hit on Youtube. Do you know how much money the studios are saving by being able to access YouTube at every stop of the production process?

Speaking of which, why is it acceptable for the studios to steal from each other? Every time the studios view an actors demo reel, they are stealing! The acting clips on the demo reel have been illegally captured and re-edited together, yet the studios use them to evaluate talent and experience of actors they are considering for future projects. They do this because it saves them money by allowing them to make informed decisions. Does that sound familiar?

I would suggest that YouTube hook up with "Nielsen" so they can give the studios key information about demographics and overall unique users who view their product while keeping a certain level of viewer anonymity in place.

[smokified]

See, if people would think like this and find alternate measures and ways to make it work for both parties like this, many issues could be avoided. Not to mention that viacom looks like the ***** kid in school that would cry when he did not get his way while screaming that they are going to tell on me.

[spark9991]

youtube founders chad and chen both probably uploaded copyrighted videos in the early days of youtube to get people to come to youtube in the first place...one that comes to mind for me is the 'saturday night live' skit that showed several cast members bobbing up and down...my bet is chad posted that or had his staff do it...with so many video sites out there that was the only way youtube could break out, by showing the outrageous stuff from tv...and it worked. chad and chen sold for hefty gain...google will argue dcma but it's a diversion from the early work of chad and chen to be the napster of video which is what youtube is

[smokified]

You sound like an idiot when you add probably to a scentence that was already based on no factual information.

You should refrain from thinking without some guidence until you get a little better handle on it.

[Peferling]

Although I can see where Viacom is attempting to do damage control, the real root cause of the problem is the changing culture of a younger generation that is unwilling to pay for the privilege of access. Access to content that folks my age didn't have twenty years ago without taking a drive to theatre and paying an entry fee.

The current monopoly is outdated, take YouTube down, and a dozen more sites will pop-up, and unless you change the culture of the internet itself, most likely impossible to enforce.

At best this is a short term fix, as the final blow will be dealt within a few short years when these kids reach adulthood and are the ones in charge. How they vote will most certainly change the rules in favor of free access. Unfortunately, copyright might be something that gets in the way. I shudder to think of that scenario, but that's change for you.

[smokified]

You touched on some good points, but I have to correct you on an assumption.

Pirating has been going on since Vic 20's and VCRs. EVERYONE had copies of video tapes that they did not buy. It has nothing to do with the younger generation, and it also has nothing to do with age period. Everyone will always take something for free if they know there are not going to be consequences.

Like you said, if they take down YouTube, a dozen more sites will pop up. They are not solving anything. The people violating the laws are the people uploading the content (essentially violating the terms and conditions) and they are the only ones that should be dealt with by the law. There is no basis for the suit against google as it is not illegal to provide a service that is used by millions legally.

[Ischyros]

I agree in a way. If you're Viacom, why not try to partner up with NBC/Universal and Fox to join Hulu and put your movies and TV shows on there! Better quality for the user, it's free for the user, and they get the entire movie or episode!

[smokified]

"Who has the obligation of monitoring Web sites for copyright violations," Litvack said. "Is it the copyright owner who must police sites and be required to send takedown notices, or should Web sites be forced to filter for copyright material?"

This statement here perfectly illustrates why the Unites States has gone belly up over the past 30 years.

It is neither of these people's responsibilities period. It is the people who are violating the law by posting the copywrited materials themselves. You can continue to attack these places of business who host these sharing sites, and you will NEVER make the improvements on the issue. If you start making consequences for the people that are actually posting the videos, people will be far less likely to engage in activities like this in fear of actually getting in trouble.

Right now the general public does not suffer very harsh consequences as a whole therefore they have no reason to care. You take down Youtube and a new site will arise in it's place. Why is it that the people in charge of this **** seem to be the most clueless. ******* stupid government.

Just another example of improper use of blame. Everyone continues to attack the results of a problem instead of facing the hard reality and dealing with the source of the problem. The stupidity angers me beyond sanity.

[The_Decider]

Yeah, like giving people 10 years for smoking weed in their house and stopped the "drug" problem.

[amitjain17]

I thought the whole idea behind the lawsuit was that Viacom wants to prove that YouTube is nothing but a hosting site for copyright material and is earning money on someone else's (like Viacom's) videos. Isnt that the reason why Viacom initially requested the user activity and see if majority of users on YouTube come for general videos or copyrighted ones like movies and TV Shows? I really dont see how YouTube would win this one.

[The_Decider]

If you can't see it you are blind.

1. It is impossible to monitor every upload.

2. Media companies can and do post their videos. Do they get paid for it? I don't know but I doubt it.

3. When YouTube recieves a take down notice, they take it down regardless if the notice is valid or not.

1+2+3=Viacom loses and can rot.

[abubakarx]

well if the service providers are not responsible, than why all the fuss about p2p networks? Why did not the courts say "hey Sony, it your problem that the X p2p network has your content onit. X was made just to carry files, if your copyright is infringing go tell them and they'll remove it from there". But no they had to shutdown whole sites and p2p networks.
For some reason after reading this article, I think a lot of software/websites can be called service providers.