Comments on: The hypocrisy about Web video

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says outrage in some quarters triggered by Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube betrays a less obvious bias.

[CydeSwype]

people's short memory

wonderful opinion article. too many pundits are saying "this is a slap in the face of the consumer on viacom's part." but this is nothing new. does anyone remember napster? are our memories really so short lived? this case is extremely similar to the napster case and we all know how that ended. only difference is that google is sponsoring youtube so there's more money in the mix (both for awarded settlements and for legal war chests).

this is music file sharing all over again, it just took the bandwidth and streaming technology (flash's evolution) to make the video version possible. plenty of video sharing websites require approval of media before it's posted and google or youtube saying that it's "impossible" to have approval queues for such things are simply being lazy and not willing to commit staff to such an operation.

none of this is terribly new.

[pjhenry1216]

completely different then napster

(though, i still think napster should have been in the clear completely.)

YouTube hosts the content. Napster did not. It only provided a means of searching other people's computers and then gave you the means of copying their files. YouTube and Napster are in NO WAY alike. They offer(ed) completely different services. Just because the end result *seems* similar does not mean they are the same thing.

If you do not understand the technology involved, don't bother commenting on these cases.

All of those video sharing sites that require approval are either:
A) nowhere near the size of YouTube
B) still gives unfair advantage to big business. why should big business be allowed to force these video sharing sites to hire people to look for THEIR content while all other small content creators have to do it on their own and then request removals?

So, given those two options, yes, its still not possible for Google to approve every video on YouTube.

[idiotkiller]

the napster decision was wrong then...

and Viacom's lawsuit against Google is wrong now.

[CydeSwype]

people's short memory

wonderful opinion article. too many pundits are saying "this is a slap in the face of the consumer on viacom's part." but this is nothing new. does anyone remember napster? are our memories really so short lived? this case is extremely similar to the napster case and we all know how that ended. only difference is that google is sponsoring youtube so there's more money in the mix (both for awarded settlements and for legal war chests).

this is music file sharing all over again, it just took the bandwidth and streaming technology (flash's evolution) to make the video version possible. plenty of video sharing websites require approval of media before it's posted and google or youtube saying that it's "impossible" to have approval queues for such things are simply being lazy and not willing to commit staff to such an operation.

none of this is terribly new.

[pjhenry1216]

completely different then napster

(though, i still think napster should have been in the clear completely.)

YouTube hosts the content. Napster did not. It only provided a means of searching other people's computers and then gave you the means of copying their files. YouTube and Napster are in NO WAY alike. They offer(ed) completely different services. Just because the end result *seems* similar does not mean they are the same thing.

If you do not understand the technology involved, don't bother commenting on these cases.

All of those video sharing sites that require approval are either:
A) nowhere near the size of YouTube
B) still gives unfair advantage to big business. why should big business be allowed to force these video sharing sites to hire people to look for THEIR content while all other small content creators have to do it on their own and then request removals?

So, given those two options, yes, its still not possible for Google to approve every video on YouTube.

[idiotkiller]

the napster decision was wrong then...

and Viacom's lawsuit against Google is wrong now.

[nuckelhedd]

200 YEARS OF TRADITION

Unhindered by progress. That is how the military is described. It also seems to be the way big business chooses to see the world. Truth... the time has come for us to demand the reconciling of billion dollar bonuses to corporate heads who cant see past their ***** and continue to ship jobs overseas. All the while mind you we have to pay more for services and media which consistently cost the companies less.

[nuckelhedd]

200 YEARS OF TRADITION

Unhindered by progress. That is how the military is described. It also seems to be the way big business chooses to see the world. Truth... the time has come for us to demand the reconciling of billion dollar bonuses to corporate heads who cant see past their ***** and continue to ship jobs overseas. All the while mind you we have to pay more for services and media which consistently cost the companies less.

[frwytcat]

I think the point is being missed

The whole point of this lawsuit is that googles business model is built on extracting advertising dollars by using other peoples works (links, videos, pictures, ect). This is a clear case of using other peoples hard work to make money for themselves, which is copyright violation (well beyond the fair use doctrine).

Someone with deep pockets had to come in and force google to play by the rules as this will almost certainly be a long and arduous task. I don't expect this to set any precedents (it would be nice if it did) as this matter will probably never see the inside of a court room.

In the end what Viacom (or any content creator for that matter) wants from google is a share of the money that google is making by using their product. If that is promotional consideration only, then get ready to see an advertising clip before you get to see ANY posted video, picture or document.

[pjhenry1216]

clear case?

this is not a "clear case" of using other peoples hard work to make money for themselves. they make money off of providing a service. people have to learn to put the blame where the blame belongs on the people ACTUALLY UPLOADING the illegal content.

A) Google shouldn't be held liable, the uploaders should be.
B) Despite this being *clearly* (see, anyone can say that) frivolous, Viacom should be happy with the free advertising. Just because they're suing doesn't mean they don't realize YouTube was a positive force. They're just jealous YouTube is doing well and see a spot where they can make a lot of money with very little effort.

I'm surprised there are so many supporters of this lawsuit. Its ridiculous in this day and age.

[umbrae]

Perhaps you missed the point...

Google gets the same advertising dollars regardless of whether the content is legally used or not. Using your logic, it is then also illegal for bars to charge for drinks when they have a TV running. Or a restaurant for charging for food while playing music in the dinning room.

Copyrighted material is all around us. It is just stupid that "digital" content does not play by the same rules as analog content. Technically, I can copy a page out of a book in the library to use in a term paper, but not print a page from the same book in PDF format. Its just stupid.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: I think the point is being missed

The point is being missed.

Basically, Google is using other people's work to make money
for themselves. It's that simple.

I have no problem watching them get nailed and I hope they go
down hard.

If record companies come down on individuals who are "illegally"
downloading music, why should google get a free ride on
anything?

If they're guilty, I hope they get nailed to the wall for every last
cent.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[frwytcat]

I think the point is being missed

The whole point of this lawsuit is that googles business model is built on extracting advertising dollars by using other peoples works (links, videos, pictures, ect). This is a clear case of using other peoples hard work to make money for themselves, which is copyright violation (well beyond the fair use doctrine).

Someone with deep pockets had to come in and force google to play by the rules as this will almost certainly be a long and arduous task. I don't expect this to set any precedents (it would be nice if it did) as this matter will probably never see the inside of a court room.

In the end what Viacom (or any content creator for that matter) wants from google is a share of the money that google is making by using their product. If that is promotional consideration only, then get ready to see an advertising clip before you get to see ANY posted video, picture or document.

[pjhenry1216]

clear case?

this is not a "clear case" of using other peoples hard work to make money for themselves. they make money off of providing a service. people have to learn to put the blame where the blame belongs on the people ACTUALLY UPLOADING the illegal content.

A) Google shouldn't be held liable, the uploaders should be.
B) Despite this being *clearly* (see, anyone can say that) frivolous, Viacom should be happy with the free advertising. Just because they're suing doesn't mean they don't realize YouTube was a positive force. They're just jealous YouTube is doing well and see a spot where they can make a lot of money with very little effort.

I'm surprised there are so many supporters of this lawsuit. Its ridiculous in this day and age.

[umbrae]

Perhaps you missed the point...

Google gets the same advertising dollars regardless of whether the content is legally used or not. Using your logic, it is then also illegal for bars to charge for drinks when they have a TV running. Or a restaurant for charging for food while playing music in the dinning room.

Copyrighted material is all around us. It is just stupid that "digital" content does not play by the same rules as analog content. Technically, I can copy a page out of a book in the library to use in a term paper, but not print a page from the same book in PDF format. Its just stupid.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: I think the point is being missed

The point is being missed.

Basically, Google is using other people's work to make money
for themselves. It's that simple.

I have no problem watching them get nailed and I hope they go
down hard.

If record companies come down on individuals who are "illegally"
downloading music, why should google get a free ride on
anything?

If they're guilty, I hope they get nailed to the wall for every last
cent.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[i_made_this]

deja view all over again?

I LOVE the results of Viacom's forcing GOOG to kill all those lousy quality Comedy Central vids. Ever since, we've started watching for free at the cc site very current very high quality episodes ... of even The Sarah Silverman Program which only started airing Feb 1st. Between ABC's shows on demand for free on the ABC site and stuff like this, we've gonna throw away our TV's - who needs em?? Seriously, the minor inconvenience here that'll be the big upshot of this is that we'll need to go to a bunch of different sites owned and operated by the various content providers to watch all this content. Sorta the same kinda deja vu all over again as when cable TV suddenly forced us to decide amongst 1,000+ channels verus the old 13 channels.

[i_made_this]

deja view all over again?

I LOVE the results of Viacom's forcing GOOG to kill all those lousy quality Comedy Central vids. Ever since, we've started watching for free at the cc site very current very high quality episodes ... of even The Sarah Silverman Program which only started airing Feb 1st. Between ABC's shows on demand for free on the ABC site and stuff like this, we've gonna throw away our TV's - who needs em?? Seriously, the minor inconvenience here that'll be the big upshot of this is that we'll need to go to a bunch of different sites owned and operated by the various content providers to watch all this content. Sorta the same kinda deja vu all over again as when cable TV suddenly forced us to decide amongst 1,000+ channels verus the old 13 channels.

[CommandHerTaco]

Great straw man argument!

You do a great job of setting up (and inventing) bad arguments to knock down with your mighty pen. Bravo!

Yet another "story" that tries to pretend fair use does not exist.

What is sadder is that people are ignorant enough to be fooled by these cheap tricks.

[charlie cooper]

To the straw man

Sorry but your argument is very weak. Can you point to the relevant part of the DMCA that allows a commercial service like YouTube to use a new piece of proprietary content -- say, last night'sJon Stewart clip? -- and claim "fair use" protection? You can't because it doesn't exist.

[CommandHerTaco]

Great straw man argument!

You do a great job of setting up (and inventing) bad arguments to knock down with your mighty pen. Bravo!

Yet another "story" that tries to pretend fair use does not exist.

What is sadder is that people are ignorant enough to be fooled by these cheap tricks.

[charlie cooper]

To the straw man

Sorry but your argument is very weak. Can you point to the relevant part of the DMCA that allows a commercial service like YouTube to use a new piece of proprietary content -- say, last night'sJon Stewart clip? -- and claim "fair use" protection? You can't because it doesn't exist.

[ShoutingLoudly]

Poorly-reasoned name calling

(This is a repost of the relevant portion of a blog post at: http://
www.shoutingloudly.com/2007/03/14/viacom-v-youtube/ )

To be fair, Cooper is right to describe the suit as more of a
bargaining chip than an attempt to shut down YouTube ala
MPAA v. Napster. If this is the sole intent, he is right and I am
wrong (above): the suit is probably a good business decision.

Yet Cooper?s commentary is thin on reasoning when he
dismisses the promotional value of YouTube clips. His core
argument is an appeal to Viacom?s authority as a presumably
rational self actor. ?I can only suppose that the memo explaining
the windfall the corporation can expect from ignoring copyright
infringement got stuck in the mail room.?

Cooper even acknowledges a CBS poll finding viewers who
download videos online are more likely to discover new shows
and watch them on TV, but he dismisses its applicability to the
YouTube debate. CBS was seeking a way to capitalize on web
downloads, so he concludes that YouTube?s promotional value
doesn?t count. Why not? The poll found that web downloads lead
to more TV viewing because downloads are an effective
promotional vehicle.

Viacom should jump at any opportunity to expand its offline
audiences, because monetizing internet video is a far sketchier
proposition. YouTube brought in $15m last year. Viacom? $11.5
BILLION. If you made almost 1,000 times as much in the old
media market as the most successful version of your nearest
new media competition, where would you invest? The odds that
I?ll pay even $5/month to watch one network?s TV shows on my
iBook are slim to none. The odds that a YouTube clip from a
show I haven?t seen yet will send me to my TV listings in search
of more? Pretty high, according to CBS.

Essentially, Cooper contends YouTube reposts can?t be good for
big media because big media says so. This song is familiar.
From the player piano to the MP3 player, nearly every new media
tool is painted as the death of old media, and these dire
predictions keep turning out dead wrong. Jack Valenti said the
VCR would be the movie industry?s Boston Strangler, but home
video is now more profitable for studios than theater tickets.
There?s obvious precedent for media execs substantially
overestimating the perils of non-control and underestimating
the upside. Again, if free media content is such a problem, why
are labels still paying radio DJs to play their music? (Songwriters?
not labels?get royalties from radio airplay.)

Further, as a stylistic critique, Cooper?s article is filled with ad
hominem attacks. Here are a few choice examples:

The only folks spoiling for a war are certain knuckleheads in the
peanut section.

Viacom?s critics are predictably snorting mad today.

? nitwits who view cyber rip-offs as another expression of viral
marketing.

Is [Viacom?s demand for ?proper control? over its ?property?] too
radical a notion for most of us to accept? Not if you have half a
brain.

In all due respect, sir, you still have not persuaded we half-
brained, snorting mad nitwits in the peanut gallery.

[skeptik]

Poorly reasoned response

Dear half- brained, snorting mad nitwit in the peanut gallery,

Who cares what you think? It's their content and they're entitled to make bad decisions on how to promote it. If they decide to lock it up in a box and show it to no one, you have no right to set it free.
Go produce your own show if you want to give it away. Let the old media die a slow painful death if they choose. It's their right.

[extinctone]

"Pretty high, according to CBS"?

Care to cite your source? Sounds like BS to me.

[ShoutingLoudly]

Poorly-reasoned name calling

(This is a repost of the relevant portion of a blog post at: http://
www.shoutingloudly.com/2007/03/14/viacom-v-youtube/ )

To be fair, Cooper is right to describe the suit as more of a
bargaining chip than an attempt to shut down YouTube ala
MPAA v. Napster. If this is the sole intent, he is right and I am
wrong (above): the suit is probably a good business decision.

Yet Cooper?s commentary is thin on reasoning when he
dismisses the promotional value of YouTube clips. His core
argument is an appeal to Viacom?s authority as a presumably
rational self actor. ?I can only suppose that the memo explaining
the windfall the corporation can expect from ignoring copyright
infringement got stuck in the mail room.?

Cooper even acknowledges a CBS poll finding viewers who
download videos online are more likely to discover new shows
and watch them on TV, but he dismisses its applicability to the
YouTube debate. CBS was seeking a way to capitalize on web
downloads, so he concludes that YouTube?s promotional value
doesn?t count. Why not? The poll found that web downloads lead
to more TV viewing because downloads are an effective
promotional vehicle.

Viacom should jump at any opportunity to expand its offline
audiences, because monetizing internet video is a far sketchier
proposition. YouTube brought in $15m last year. Viacom? $11.5
BILLION. If you made almost 1,000 times as much in the old
media market as the most successful version of your nearest
new media competition, where would you invest? The odds that
I?ll pay even $5/month to watch one network?s TV shows on my
iBook are slim to none. The odds that a YouTube clip from a
show I haven?t seen yet will send me to my TV listings in search
of more? Pretty high, according to CBS.

Essentially, Cooper contends YouTube reposts can?t be good for
big media because big media says so. This song is familiar.
From the player piano to the MP3 player, nearly every new media
tool is painted as the death of old media, and these dire
predictions keep turning out dead wrong. Jack Valenti said the
VCR would be the movie industry?s Boston Strangler, but home
video is now more profitable for studios than theater tickets.
There?s obvious precedent for media execs substantially
overestimating the perils of non-control and underestimating
the upside. Again, if free media content is such a problem, why
are labels still paying radio DJs to play their music? (Songwriters?
not labels?get royalties from radio airplay.)

Further, as a stylistic critique, Cooper?s article is filled with ad
hominem attacks. Here are a few choice examples:

The only folks spoiling for a war are certain knuckleheads in the
peanut section.

Viacom?s critics are predictably snorting mad today.

? nitwits who view cyber rip-offs as another expression of viral
marketing.

Is [Viacom?s demand for ?proper control? over its ?property?] too
radical a notion for most of us to accept? Not if you have half a
brain.

In all due respect, sir, you still have not persuaded we half-
brained, snorting mad nitwits in the peanut gallery.

[skeptik]

Poorly reasoned response

Dear half- brained, snorting mad nitwit in the peanut gallery,

Who cares what you think? It's their content and they're entitled to make bad decisions on how to promote it. If they decide to lock it up in a box and show it to no one, you have no right to set it free.
Go produce your own show if you want to give it away. Let the old media die a slow painful death if they choose. It's their right.

[extinctone]

"Pretty high, according to CBS"?

Care to cite your source? Sounds like BS to me.

[R Me]

old cash cows

The entire problem with the music and movie industry is that they have, as a matter of law, been continually handed cash cows by lawmakers. They are understandably reluctant to give up these money makers on their own. The RIAA has for all legal purposes made the Audio Home recording Act of 1992 useless as a legal right for the consumer yet still collects cash for ever digital music device and blank CD/DVD media produced, no matter its intended use. This model was based on radio and fair use recording from it. Now the powers that be wish to change the rules and keep the cow and claim there is not such thing as fair use for the consumer anymore.

The only way to thwart this is to completely abandon the practice of paying for music/movies. If everyone stopped going to the movies and buying CD/DVD's of music and movies it would only take a few months for the idiots to cave in and find a new business model that supports modern technology. But that is asking far too much from the public, to quit complaining and make a stand.

STOP BUYING FROM THE POWERS THAT BE.

[R Me]

old cash cows

The entire problem with the music and movie industry is that they have, as a matter of law, been continually handed cash cows by lawmakers. They are understandably reluctant to give up these money makers on their own. The RIAA has for all legal purposes made the Audio Home recording Act of 1992 useless as a legal right for the consumer yet still collects cash for ever digital music device and blank CD/DVD media produced, no matter its intended use. This model was based on radio and fair use recording from it. Now the powers that be wish to change the rules and keep the cow and claim there is not such thing as fair use for the consumer anymore.

The only way to thwart this is to completely abandon the practice of paying for music/movies. If everyone stopped going to the movies and buying CD/DVD's of music and movies it would only take a few months for the idiots to cave in and find a new business model that supports modern technology. But that is asking far too much from the public, to quit complaining and make a stand.

STOP BUYING FROM THE POWERS THAT BE.

[CommandHerTaco]

All content.

The details are shrouded, of course, but if you go to YouTube, the videos that are no longer available give a message at the top of the screen about Viacom. Some of the pulled videos were really off the wall, and perhaps false-positives. Like teenage girls dancing in their underwear to a Motley Crue song. (Not that I was looking for that kind of thing.) (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) (Why are you looking at me that way?)

[CommandHerTaco]

All content.

The details are shrouded, of course, but if you go to YouTube, the videos that are no longer available give a message at the top of the screen about Viacom. Some of the pulled videos were really off the wall, and perhaps false-positives. Like teenage girls dancing in their underwear to a Motley Crue song. (Not that I was looking for that kind of thing.) (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) (Why are you looking at me that way?)

[hemo_jr]

Nonsense

What a load of anti-freedom bull.

[hemo_jr]

Nonsense

What a load of anti-freedom bull.