Comments on: Viacom sues Google over YouTube clips

Media company seeks more than $1 billion in damages, claiming that nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips appear on video-sharing site.

[thedreaming]

Copyright, Copywrong

Copyright has nothing to do with it. Viacom doesn't make money by showing TV shows. They make money from the ad space they sell to advertisers. Clips on youtube have no comercials, so no one buys anything, which means no ad money for Viacom.

Viacom should just have youtube insert their ads back into each of the clips so they can continue to charge advertisers. Does it matter if they see the clip on tv or on the web? So long as the ads are there, they'll get their advertising done and their ad revenue.

[kjledoux]

This is not about Viacom or Google or YouTube it is about the Artist

I am disturbed by most of the threads I am reading here because everyone is focusing on either Viacom or Google. The people getting hurt here are the artists who are signed to labels but are not getting paid squat because the label has put all of their money behind the newest Brittney Spears. Therefore, their young alternative artist is still doing their own bookings, cannot keep a consistent job because they have to tour with some big name artist at $500.00/show and still feed themselves in the process. Yep their record is out there and they have a good following of loyal fans all who think they are going to help the artist out by putting their music over some stupid video clip of their dog licking it's butt. Give me a break! No one is going to track down the producer of this video demanding who the artist is providing the music soundtrack so they can rush out and buy the record. They are going to laugh their ass off and then go on to the next stupid video.

[bergrrt]

Via_wrong

Sad, wrong headed thinking in my opinion. Seeing clips from features is like free advertising, and if something is getting tons of hits make the complete product available for sale. Isn't this how advertising is done? They aren't really losing any money with what happens on Youtube but they may alienate potential future buyers or viewers. Watching repeats of commercials hurts who? Greed is clouding their vision.

[fcekuahd]

WRONG

Advertising promotions are measurable. You release a campaign, then you measure the results (in this case, television viewer ratings). Nobody can tell you if these pirated YouTube clips have had any impact on television viewer ratings. Calling this "free advertising" is completely idiotic.

[kjledoux]

Free Advertising?

With all do respect, you do not know anything about marketing and advertising. Advertising focuses on branding. Show me a video created by Joe Blow that provides the courtesy of putting an artists name, album title, song title, film credits etc...then show me the metrics which reveal how the video by Joe Blow contributed to X $ of sales in which demographic locations, household income, number of children so that the artist can take this information and ensure that their next record appeals to their target market.

[avsb1]

Let's try some thing new...

We all knew this fight was going to get official. while both Viacom and Google are media giants in their own ways, only the latter has stepped up for its users in the past. Do you have any facts or views to add? Write a line or share a detailed analysis...both will help. Now's the time to speak, and here's the place: http://viatube.blogspot.com

[wallstreetfreethinker]

Video humor

Video humor about Sumner Redstone and YouTube at www.wallstreetfreethinker.com

[dollpenguin]

Viacom is wrong!

If YouTube were allowing feature length movies to be shown, it would be a problem, but I have only seen snippets of films that act as sort of an amateur teaser/trailor..this can only spark my interest in paying to see the full motion picture. As for shows, there are some shows that I can download in parts..usually, I just watch shows that have gone off the air such as "That's My Bush" or "Crayon ShinChan". These episodes keep the memories of these shows alive, so if they are ever rebroadcast, we will tune in. I would much rather watch a program on television, than on my computer..Anyway, I also like YouTube for the home videos, and music videos of both established and up-and-coming artists..I still watch Fuse and MTV2 for videos, but I like the control that YouTube gives me. I really hope Viacom loses big in this lawsuit, both financially and through the horrible public relations that this has generated for them..other companies are using YouTube to deliver professional trailors/teasers of their films - it is a great advertising outlet, but Viacom would rather make money with a frivilous lawsuit against YouTube than use them as the great marketing/promotional tool that they are..

[kjledoux]

Where are the Royalties?!!

The first video I saw on YouTube, just after it launched was a comedic skit to the music of a popular new Rap star. My first and immediate thought was...did this artist, label, publisher, agree to license this artists music for this video clip. I knew the answer. Media companies, artists and publishers are in the business of making money. Sync fees and licensing royalties are a huge part of that business. In the early stages of this site I wrote a blog on this topic and was lambasted by YouTube converts who purported that by allowing users to post videos with music was free advertising. The possibility gave me pause until I viewed another 100 videos at random looking for any sign of the artist's name, brand, song title...anything that could be construed as advertising for them. Not one video out of the 100 provided anything referencing the artist. I concluded that my initial point was solid; artists are being deprived of their livelihood by YouTube. If the lawsuits are not strong based on some legal loophole provision that by YouTube having a policing policy, it is absolved of copyright infringement, then I say that the media companies should go after the end users who post them. Just the threat will stop this nonsense. The music industry is struggling to maintain an identity as it is and musical artists, most who are barely surviving in their art (even if they are signed to a major label) are finding themselves without protection. Let's not add insult to injury by stealing their music. If you want to claim that the music is "free advertisement", at least put the artist?s name, song title, and label affiliation (if there is one) in the credits of the videos.

[kjledoux]

You might be right but...

What about the artists who are not receiving their royalties for their music or acting? What about the small music publisher who is trying to survive on sync fees by pushing music for use in video, television and movies? Forget the fat cats, you are right about them but you will never impeade the movers and shakers at the top. It is a game they all play and will continue to play. My point is that the copyright infringement must stop for the sake of the little guy.

[zappa007]

There are tons of sites moviedesi.com newshowtime.com prholic.com

there are tons of sites showing free movies that you can watch online and are streaming movies
http://www.newshowtime.com
http://www.prholic.com
http://www.moviedesi.com


there are tons no one can stop them i think cause they have servers outside us or something :S

[Wester1]

Wow - didn't realise this story dated back to March 2007!

If you live in the UK you can petition the government on this until 06 October 2008 at:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/viacom/

[TheCrudMan]

One thing worth noting is that shows on TV (including some Viacom ones) will take things off of YouTube and put them on their shows (Leno has a whole bit on this..) Well...that is copyright violation. You do not have the right to pull something off of YouTube and put it on TV without the permission of the user who created it in order to make money...goes both ways people.

[Flying_Dragon]

In today's age the media companies has to realize everyone can be a producer and they no longer can control the mass media as in the past.I understand copyright infringement but it goes to far and loss figures are exaggerated. I don't use U tube much. Id rather watch peoples own clips than something I can see on TV already. Lets see I have some Viacom channels in my package I pay for. So lets say I go to Utube and watch what I already have on TV that is considered lost revenue? Heck Viacomec hanels are in most basic package or maybe 4.99 from my provider so Id like to know how they lose a billion dollars? I think the whole privacy issue needs to be addressed and better standards for what is a loss and what is not. Society is no longer free anymore either, your privacy and freedom of ownership is being taking away by big media companies. If they could they would insert a microchip to watermark your eyes for seeing something without their authorization. There has to be some kind of compromise, I think this kind of approach hurts media companies image more than helps them. Makes me sick to my stomach watching all this go on. Everyone has home theaters now so noone goes to theaters as much. There are a lot of factors to why they lose money and they have to take responsibility for there mismanagement as well. People cant even be artists anymore or try and create something. If a balance is lost forever the consumer and the artist loses. One day noone will be able to create anything or do anything because it has been done.

[sniffit]

All of you are right the freedom of seals and the freedom of ownership is one jiant cercule. I Know that (I no this may be the wrong approch! But bare with me) Take the 10 commandments for example. when they were first written (who knows what language they were written in for sure) just what we are told. and how meney times have they been soled. Do we relly have the wright to sale word wrather it be songs books or even movies sence it was given to us buy god what makes it owers?

[aicra]

I'll be it's mostly all fair use.

If not, something has got to change in the law. The law needs an upgrade.

[HasenIjouDa-JPN]

YouTube will likely to be shut down next month. The thing is that Viacom is more than big. They've been into business from 1971-2005 and started again in 2006. They want that amount of money, so they wouldn't be bankrupt. With all the copyrighted material on YouTube, Google has to pay a billion dollars to Viacom to have Viacom's business back on track. This way, it'll get the YouTube trolls out of your head. I bet Viacom has a lot of lawyers by then, then bye-bye YouTube.

[quapawsix]

Vicon you have drawn the line in the sand and I will be looking to make sure I don't buy or support anything you do and will tell everyone I come into contact with about your sleazy tactics. You are trying to stifle information and you people are part of the problem not the solution.

[Emanicon]

I find it kinda cool that YouTube is using the DMCA law for a shield. "...Only in American!" lol

[crentapa]

Emanicon. You're really smart... VERY SMART... smarter than the sleeze bags here.

Fallacy A) I only watch pirated movies on YouTube to see if they're worth "renting"
Replace "renting" with "torrenting" and you have the truth.

Fallacy B) YouTube can't hurt anybodies profits
Naruto. After it was removed millions of forums were invaded with people asking "WHEREZ MY NARUTO!!! DAMN YOUTUBE!!! I NEED IT (but won't pay for it) NARUTO!!!111one." (It was kinda funny actually, how ignorant people are.) And the materials that are "gaurded over" like "need more cowbell" have videos noted as "parodies" (WHY chipmunking is a parody is beyond me... it's the SAME content, the same digital signature... for all intensive purpose' it's the same video (and you can de-chipmunk with a loss of only ~50%). But people will post on how it's lame that people only upload those videos. (Then again, NBC is just being *******. Why not, well... UPLOAD IT with the millions of other SNL Skits you already HAVE on site?)


Fallacy C) Youtube shouldn't need to police itself.
The most annoying of all statements. Forums have Moderators, Wikipedia has Administrators... Youtube has... no one. The LEAST Youtube could do is add a search filter (like napster did) to prohibit/restrict illegal uploads. AND, in addition... do NOT inform the user that said filter exists (you should NEVER inform the user that he is being filtered.)

Hell, the "Spore ***** Competition" NOT getting banned is beyond me. The PORN VIDEOS with websites that DO download malware is beyond me. It's against Youtube policy to upload porn... and NO ONE will remove it.


Let me make an analogy here. There is a playground... there are kids in this playground. One day a one ugly kid punches another kid hard enough to dislocate his jaw.

The kids just watch as the fight goes on, no one "tattling" on the big ugly kid... the kids mother, who was a little overly protective of her child, passes by and notices this big kid ganging up on her child. She rushes over to protect her maimed boy.

The ugly boy is expelled from school and life goes on.

The NEXT day another ugly boy, possibly a mutated sibling of the latter, beats the poor child to the brink of death. The mother, being EXTREMELY overprotective is there JUST INTIME to prevent her child from reciving a coup de etat.


Now imagine she's white :D


But it should be clear, normally a teacher would be present at all times... but the teacher would rather smoke weed than help this poor mother.


The act of complying with "the mothers wishes" of removing the bully does NOT prevent more bullies from acculilating. Similarly, the act of removing pirated videos does NOT prevent more people from RE-Uploading them. If people were using YouTube to transmit child pornography, I'm CERTAIN you'd DEMAND youtube put a stop to it...

But Pirated Video? YouTube gets more money by letting them stay up and paying off lawsuits than making ANY filter recognition program to block them. It's not about compliance... it's about PROMOTTING illegal actions.



The Tabloids do this all the time, everyone sues them and they STILL have a greater profit than Vogue.



I just wish that some guy will FINALLY kill all the stupid people in the judicial branch and replace them with smart young hip people with a sense of moral obligation.

Wikipedia should be "CHARGED" for any slander posted on it's pages.

YouTube should be "CHARGED" for distributing bootleg material.

IsoHunt should be "CHARGED" for being a bunch of pompus *******.


As long as US Law remains in the stone ages... nothing can be done. I mean, requesting the IP addresses of KNOWN Felons SHOULD be legal (MPA Warning, selling or distributing this video is a felony) but it isn't. Why? Because Old Man ******** won't "open the can of worms". It's a felony, they have a right to prosceute... they have a right to supena... if it was store security cameras people wouldn't care... but IP addresses? SERIOUSLY?