Perspective: The hypocrisy about Web video

The only surprise about Viacom's copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube is that it took this long to get here.

Ever since Google closed its $1.6 billion acquisition of YouTube last fall, the countdown began. In the absence of a licensing deal, the likelihood grew that one or more of the entertainment conglomerates whose videos regularly got reposted on the service without their permission would turn to the courts for redress.

Even though YouTube has grown exponentially, the bulk of its traffic still depends upon videos made by professional content creators. Its apologists can claim that certain provisions of the hopelessly antiquated Digital Millennium Copyright Act offer protection. But the folks running Google aren't dummies.

They recognize the risks of walking around with a veritable Sword of Damocles trailing everywhere. There's no higher principle at stake here. The only folks spoiling for a war are certain knuckleheads in the peanut section.

Viacom and Google are two mega companies trying to figure out the rules for coexistence in a digital reality that didn't exist a couple of years ago.

So it is that there is a silly notion making the rounds that Viacom is making a terrible business mistake. You can find many expressions of the same tired theme. One particularly logicfree argument maintains that by demanding that YouTube pull purloined videos off its service, Viacom is only hurting itself because the Google-owned video-sharing site is a "promotional vehicle."

I'm sure that comes as astonishing news to Viacom. Since the lawsuit talks about "rampant infringement" causing grave harm to businesses that actually generate creative works of content, what gives? I can only suppose that the memo explaining the windfall the corporation can expect from ignoring copyright infringement got stuck in the mail room.

Ah, but I forgot; they're all corporate thieves anyway. And they likely smell of BO, to boot.

Viacom's critics are predictably snorting mad today. The message boards are lit up with angry "viewers" threatening never to watch another Daily Show clip again. (Guys, I think the lawsuit obviates the need for the boycott, but never mind.)

In their worldview, Viacom's legal claims are merely bogus corporate claptrap from a big media power more interested in protecting its turf than in playing nice with the "information just wants to be free" crowd. But let's not confuse things. This is anything but a modern-day struggle between David and Goliath.

Viacom and Google are two mega companies trying to figure out the rules for coexistence in a digital reality that didn't exist a couple of years ago. The last thing Google wants is a protracted and expensive legal fight. Ditto for Viacom and the rest of the content creators out there.

Everyone knows what needs to happen. Agreeing on the details is the hard part. Sources say everybody's talking with everybody but that the hang-up is about money (isn't it always?).

Related audio
Coop's Corner podcast

Hear Charles Cooper talk
about why Viacom's lawsuit
against Google and YouTube
comes as no surprise.

Viacom and the rest of the creative community can do wonderfully well by using the Internet to their advantage. But they first need to forge an agreement that will protect them from nitwits who view cyber rip-offs as another expression of viral marketing.

You get this over and over again in any discussion of copyrights and YouTube. I recall how one misleading-titled blog post approvingly mentioned the results of a CBS poll finding a connection between the downloading of video and an increase in television viewing. The poster conveniently ignored the salient point of the report: CBS wanted a way to profit by streaming its own programming. YouTube wasn't part of the equation.

For CBS, the Internet would serve as another distribution channel--one in which it could exercise proper control over its property.

Is that too radical a notion for most of us to accept? Not if you have half a brain. The rhetoric on all sides may escalate, but cooler heads surely will find a way to figure out a sensible accord. That's what nearly always happens.

In the meantime, here's my advice to anyone who wants to watch John Stewart: Stop whining, and pay for the damned subscription.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[bcjrslu20]

Hypocrisy?

I do not think that this article cites any hypocritical action on the part of Google or Viacom, furthermore, it meanders aimlessly without really addressing any one issue, then uses foul language at the end.

[Tadmin]

Have another coffee

You should have another coffee before posting. It's obviously a stab at the hypocrisy of the content leaches... and a well-written one.

[bcjrslu20]

Hypocrisy?

I do not think that this article cites any hypocritical action on the part of Google or Viacom, furthermore, it meanders aimlessly without really addressing any one issue, then uses foul language at the end.

[Tadmin]

Have another coffee

You should have another coffee before posting. It's obviously a stab at the hypocrisy of the content leaches... and a well-written one.

[ferricoxide]

Is YouTube Really Competing?

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that YouTube is actually competing with ViaCom offerings. Have you ever even watched a video on YouTube? It's kind of like saying that a 10th generation dub of a VHS copy of Phantom Menace competes with a showing of Phantom Menace at one of the digital movie theatres.

Yes, theft of content is still theft of content, but to say that what YouTube offers would be a sufficiently good alternative as to negatively impact ViaCom's own offerings seems laughable.

[skeptik]

head in sand

No arguing YouTube's video quality is crap. I don't watch much YouTube for that reason.
But are you honestly saying that someone who goes to YouTube to watch a video clip will then go elsewhere and pay to watch the clip? If so, you're seriously deluded or just flat out lying.

You could have made the argument that someone watching the free crappy video would never have bought the clip anyway, and there is room for debate on that view. But YouTube most certainly is competing with Viacom offering the same video clip. If Viacom was claiming every viewing on YouTube was a lost sale (ala RIAA reasoning) I'd strongly disagree, but that's not the issue here. They simply don't want their clips hosted and it's their right.

[phillynets]

An issue for damages

You raise an issue for the extent of damages - like $1 Billion, but this totally off-point when it comes to whether Google violated Viacom's copyrights. Even if YouTube/Google is incompetent in distributing the pirated content - it is still copyright piracy. If, however, there is not a lot damage the Billion Dollar price tag will get chopped down. Of course, the best thing for both companies is to make a deal so they can both go about making more money together.

[csven]

It's about Attention

Anything... anything... that takes viewers away from the television is competition. That it is the same content is rubbing salt in the wound of those who helped create it to acquire viewers in the first place.

The issue is Attention. Without it, there's no advertising revenue and that's how both of these companies stay in business.

[ferricoxide]

Is YouTube Really Competing?

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that YouTube is actually competing with ViaCom offerings. Have you ever even watched a video on YouTube? It's kind of like saying that a 10th generation dub of a VHS copy of Phantom Menace competes with a showing of Phantom Menace at one of the digital movie theatres.

Yes, theft of content is still theft of content, but to say that what YouTube offers would be a sufficiently good alternative as to negatively impact ViaCom's own offerings seems laughable.

[skeptik]

head in sand

No arguing YouTube's video quality is crap. I don't watch much YouTube for that reason.
But are you honestly saying that someone who goes to YouTube to watch a video clip will then go elsewhere and pay to watch the clip? If so, you're seriously deluded or just flat out lying.

You could have made the argument that someone watching the free crappy video would never have bought the clip anyway, and there is room for debate on that view. But YouTube most certainly is competing with Viacom offering the same video clip. If Viacom was claiming every viewing on YouTube was a lost sale (ala RIAA reasoning) I'd strongly disagree, but that's not the issue here. They simply don't want their clips hosted and it's their right.

[phillynets]

An issue for damages

You raise an issue for the extent of damages - like $1 Billion, but this totally off-point when it comes to whether Google violated Viacom's copyrights. Even if YouTube/Google is incompetent in distributing the pirated content - it is still copyright piracy. If, however, there is not a lot damage the Billion Dollar price tag will get chopped down. Of course, the best thing for both companies is to make a deal so they can both go about making more money together.

[csven]

It's about Attention

Anything... anything... that takes viewers away from the television is competition. That it is the same content is rubbing salt in the wound of those who helped create it to acquire viewers in the first place.

The issue is Attention. Without it, there's no advertising revenue and that's how both of these companies stay in business.

[technewsjunkie]

Well said.

As a (professional) content creator I look forward to this all working
out. So I can get a piece of the pie!

[technewsjunkie]

Well said.

As a (professional) content creator I look forward to this all working
out. So I can get a piece of the pie!

[phillynets]

Yep

An excellent run-down of the salient issues at hand.

Just one question: When Google purchased YouTube, I wonder if they agreed to accept all of the liability for this easily forseable problem. If you buy a company with a physical space that has environmental liabilities, unless the buyer assumes the responsibility, the seller retains significant liability. What happens when you buy a company like YouTube? Do they have to clean up some of their mess - like a problematic business model - or is Google on the hook for it all?

[dargon19888]

Yes they did...

And Mark Cuban was one of the first to point out the fact that this is a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

When Google bought YouTube, they became on the hook.
Even though they are "technically" complying with the DCMA act by removing the video as soon as its reported, they are still on the hook because as soon as it goes down, it comes back up.

What is interesting is that Viacom didn't go after the posters who are putting up the material in the first place.

[phillynets]

Yep

An excellent run-down of the salient issues at hand.

Just one question: When Google purchased YouTube, I wonder if they agreed to accept all of the liability for this easily forseable problem. If you buy a company with a physical space that has environmental liabilities, unless the buyer assumes the responsibility, the seller retains significant liability. What happens when you buy a company like YouTube? Do they have to clean up some of their mess - like a problematic business model - or is Google on the hook for it all?

[dargon19888]

Yes they did...

And Mark Cuban was one of the first to point out the fact that this is a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

When Google bought YouTube, they became on the hook.
Even though they are "technically" complying with the DCMA act by removing the video as soon as its reported, they are still on the hook because as soon as it goes down, it comes back up.

What is interesting is that Viacom didn't go after the posters who are putting up the material in the first place.

[befuddledms]

blurry line

I have come across content on YouTube that I did not know was available. Stuff that the copyright holder is not actively marketing. That has lead me to either rent it legally or purchase a legal copy. Maybe I am in the minority but I am sure that a lot of people do the same. These big media companies need to get it through their head that they will die if they don't embrace the internet as a medium for promoting and selling their wares. VW came out with the incredibly funny "unpimp your auto" commercials a while back. They were immediately on YouTube. Everyone wanted to see them. You can't tell me that this free advertising didn't help VW sell more GTI's.
YouTube has overhead for running their service so they need to make money. Viacom and the others need to let loose of the reins a little bit and think of a way to work with YouTube and other internet services and it will benefit them a lot more than suing everyone. The more people who view a clip from the Daily Show the more people it bring to actually watch the show. Sure some people don't have basic cable and technically should not be able to watch the clips but at some point that person might decide that it is worth getting basic cable because of things that they saw on YouTube.
Viacom and the like want total control and instant gratification rather than trying to use new technology to nurture future paying customers. And no, I don't work for YouTube.

[gggg sssss]

advertising part 3

so if I shot a video of your mother and put it up on YouTube, I could claim that you should be grateful for the free advertising?

[befuddledms]

blurry line

I have come across content on YouTube that I did not know was available. Stuff that the copyright holder is not actively marketing. That has lead me to either rent it legally or purchase a legal copy. Maybe I am in the minority but I am sure that a lot of people do the same. These big media companies need to get it through their head that they will die if they don't embrace the internet as a medium for promoting and selling their wares. VW came out with the incredibly funny "unpimp your auto" commercials a while back. They were immediately on YouTube. Everyone wanted to see them. You can't tell me that this free advertising didn't help VW sell more GTI's.
YouTube has overhead for running their service so they need to make money. Viacom and the others need to let loose of the reins a little bit and think of a way to work with YouTube and other internet services and it will benefit them a lot more than suing everyone. The more people who view a clip from the Daily Show the more people it bring to actually watch the show. Sure some people don't have basic cable and technically should not be able to watch the clips but at some point that person might decide that it is worth getting basic cable because of things that they saw on YouTube.
Viacom and the like want total control and instant gratification rather than trying to use new technology to nurture future paying customers. And no, I don't work for YouTube.

[gggg sssss]

advertising part 3

so if I shot a video of your mother and put it up on YouTube, I could claim that you should be grateful for the free advertising?

[garrywdm]

Youtube killed the MTV star

It's just Youtube envy. Youtube took down the clips, and Viacom should be booming...but it isn't is it. Viacom is a spent force, who the hell watches mtv these days anyway and whatever that other show was? Never heard of it, never seen it, couldn't give a damn. The youtube market is the world...not just north america.

[garrywdm]

Youtube killed the MTV star

It's just Youtube envy. Youtube took down the clips, and Viacom should be booming...but it isn't is it. Viacom is a spent force, who the hell watches mtv these days anyway and whatever that other show was? Never heard of it, never seen it, couldn't give a damn. The youtube market is the world...not just north america.

[seankirk]

Finally Something Rooted In Real

I was starting to wonder if had missed something. I have seen all the web posts screaming for the blood of eveyone at Viacom. But most people forget the time and effort that goes into producing any show/movie on any TV network. Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. In school you get expelled for copying another students work. As the web progresses we should not forget to respect the work of others.

[pjhenry1216]

dunno what real you're referring to

Viacom requested clips to be removed. YouTube complied. Viacom set up its own site with clips. It failed. Viacom sues YouTube. YouTube never argued with them and always removed clips that Viacom requested be removed... EVEN CLIPS THAT VIACOM HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHATSOEVER. Viacom is just upset that it can't compete with YouTube on its own merits, so its suing. *Thats* the American way these days apparently.

Copying work and posted it on the web is *not* plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying work and then calling it your own. Your analogy doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form. As the web progresses, society should keep up. Just because something used to be one way doesn't mean it always should be. Tradition doesn't justify itself. As the web progresses, society, culture, and economics should do its best to progress as well instead of spending all this money holding onto a business model that is dying in the electronic world.

[nuckelhedd]

Ok Step One....

The American way has always been to benefit from someone elses creative work or if that isn't possible to utterly discredit or destroy the competition. (Anyone remember Tesla an Tucker)Lets also not forget our own govermnents' efforte to steal inventions which happen to be useful to the military (i.e. free energy machines, wind generators, solar) all of which were stifled until they couldn't be ignored. (wind farms were illegal at one point because it would have blocked the utilities profits and to some extent they still are unless they are owned by the utilities). Let's also not forget Rockafellers attempts to stop the federal highway system because it would have and effectively did destroy his railroads consumer base. Enough said on that.

[nuckelhedd]

Step Two...

These media conglomerates have less to do with so called content creation than you think, and even if everything they ever did was out of their own pockets it still doesn't follow that people are as you said plagarising anything. That requires someone to pass off someone elses work as their own. Do you see how ridiculous your comments sound now? No one is going to get expelled from You Tube or Google for showing a clip of the daily show or Apocalypse Now or anything else that shows up in small portions. Even RIAA has to concede that replay of up to 8 seconds worth of audio content doesn't constitute copyright infringement. Again these companies need to come to an agreement as to sharing revenue because the genie is out and you can't put it back and to tell the unmitigated truth sales and viewership are up for most of the so called "Pirated" content in it's original forms. Be they TV or DVD or whathave you. It's time they quit whining and started living in the real world. Boo Hoo i don't my $1 billion bonus. Poo on them

[fcekuahd]

Yeah, I think it's really funny how many posters here...

seem to have absolutely no idea what copyright means. But fortunately, none of them are going to have any influence on the future of copyright law.

[CommandHerTaco]

Learn the definitions.

>> Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

>> Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Plagiarism?using someone's words, ideas images, etc. without acknowledgment?is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law.

[CommandHerTaco]

Learn the definitions.

>> Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. <<

From Wikipedia:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

>> Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. <<

From Wikipedia:
Plagiarism?using someone's words, ideas images, etc. without acknowledgment?is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law.

[seankirk]

Finally Something Rooted In Real

I was starting to wonder if had missed something. I have seen all the web posts screaming for the blood of eveyone at Viacom. But most people forget the time and effort that goes into producing any show/movie on any TV network. Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. In school you get expelled for copying another students work. As the web progresses we should not forget to respect the work of others.

[pjhenry1216]

dunno what real you're referring to

Viacom requested clips to be removed. YouTube complied. Viacom set up its own site with clips. It failed. Viacom sues YouTube. YouTube never argued with them and always removed clips that Viacom requested be removed... EVEN CLIPS THAT VIACOM HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHATSOEVER. Viacom is just upset that it can't compete with YouTube on its own merits, so its suing. *Thats* the American way these days apparently.

Copying work and posted it on the web is *not* plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying work and then calling it your own. Your analogy doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form. As the web progresses, society should keep up. Just because something used to be one way doesn't mean it always should be. Tradition doesn't justify itself. As the web progresses, society, culture, and economics should do its best to progress as well instead of spending all this money holding onto a business model that is dying in the electronic world.

[nuckelhedd]

Ok Step One....

The American way has always been to benefit from someone elses creative work or if that isn't possible to utterly discredit or destroy the competition. (Anyone remember Tesla an Tucker)Lets also not forget our own govermnents' efforte to steal inventions which happen to be useful to the military (i.e. free energy machines, wind generators, solar) all of which were stifled until they couldn't be ignored. (wind farms were illegal at one point because it would have blocked the utilities profits and to some extent they still are unless they are owned by the utilities). Let's also not forget Rockafellers attempts to stop the federal highway system because it would have and effectively did destroy his railroads consumer base. Enough said on that.

[nuckelhedd]

Step Two...

These media conglomerates have less to do with so called content creation than you think, and even if everything they ever did was out of their own pockets it still doesn't follow that people are as you said plagarising anything. That requires someone to pass off someone elses work as their own. Do you see how ridiculous your comments sound now? No one is going to get expelled from You Tube or Google for showing a clip of the daily show or Apocalypse Now or anything else that shows up in small portions. Even RIAA has to concede that replay of up to 8 seconds worth of audio content doesn't constitute copyright infringement. Again these companies need to come to an agreement as to sharing revenue because the genie is out and you can't put it back and to tell the unmitigated truth sales and viewership are up for most of the so called "Pirated" content in it's original forms. Be they TV or DVD or whathave you. It's time they quit whining and started living in the real world. Boo Hoo i don't my $1 billion bonus. Poo on them

[fcekuahd]

Yeah, I think it's really funny how many posters here...

seem to have absolutely no idea what copyright means. But fortunately, none of them are going to have any influence on the future of copyright law.

[CommandHerTaco]

Learn the definitions.

>> Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

>> Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Plagiarism?using someone's words, ideas images, etc. without acknowledgment?is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law.

[CommandHerTaco]

Learn the definitions.

>> Being able to take someone elses creative works and do whatever you like with it has never been the American way. <<

From Wikipedia:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

>> Before web videos ruled the net, copying someones work and posting on the web was called plagiarism and is still scorned upon. <<

From Wikipedia:
Plagiarism?using someone's words, ideas images, etc. without acknowledgment?is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law.

[Penguinisto]

Holy Bad Metaphors, Batman!

To wit:

[i]"They recognize the risks of walking around with a veritable sword of Damocles trailing everywhere."[/i]

Okay, dude - that was just very painful to read.

You do know that the sword in question [i]hung by a hair right over Damocles' scalp[/i], right? So, umm, how exactly does that sword go about "trailing" around everywhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

Sorry 'mano, but that sorta blew it for me. Was too busy going "***?" in my head a lot to bother w/ the rest of the blog...

/P

[catch23]

Did you bother to read from the link you give?

I'll paste in the important part

>>More generally, it is used to denote a precarious situation and sense of foreboding thereof, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance.

[CommandHerTaco]

My thoughts exactly.

I was like, "So, it trails everywhere and then they trip and fall on it, or maybe someone gets annoyed at the trailing sword and retaliates somehow."

[Penguinisto]

Holy Bad Metaphors, Batman!

To wit:

[i]"They recognize the risks of walking around with a veritable sword of Damocles trailing everywhere."[/i]

Okay, dude - that was just very painful to read.

You do know that the sword in question [i]hung by a hair right over Damocles' scalp[/i], right? So, umm, how exactly does that sword go about "trailing" around everywhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

Sorry 'mano, but that sorta blew it for me. Was too busy going "***?" in my head a lot to bother w/ the rest of the blog...

/P

[catch23]

Did you bother to read from the link you give?

I'll paste in the important part

>>More generally, it is used to denote a precarious situation and sense of foreboding thereof, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance.

[CommandHerTaco]

My thoughts exactly.

I was like, "So, it trails everywhere and then they trip and fall on it, or maybe someone gets annoyed at the trailing sword and retaliates somehow."

[idiotkiller]

incredible, especially from a CNET editor

this opinion is incredible, especially coming from an editor of a website that professes to be on the cutting edge of technology.

copyrights and intellectual property as concepts are outdated and no longer apply. YouTube is the actual reflection of reality, a social site where people gather and share what they like in common, original and "copyrighted" alike. it's what people ALREADY do in real life and HAVE been doing ever since culture as a concept came about for humans.

this is just the natural evolution of what the internet can and MUST be. Viacom, ironically enough, represents old media that needs to evolve with the times or get OUT of the way.

[peteraltschuler]

Here's a suggestion for you, other than suicide

If copyrights and intellectual property no longer apply, then you should do whatever job you do... for free! After all, once you're paid the first time for creating a report or making a latte or delivering a package, all the other times should be done without charge. Your boss isn't getting any additional value from something you've already done, so why pay you? Of course, you'll still have to pay for food, gas, rent, and the rest -- just like the artists and authors and composers who turn out the material you "share." If they're not going to be paid for their work, why create it? Then, with nothing new, you may just have to hum to yourself. If you're ready to barter, exchanging something of value for something that, apparently, has some worth to you (or you wouldn't want to "share" it), then you're opinion may be valid. Or, if you're open to the idea that, if someone needs transportation, they should just "share" your car... without telling you... or bringing it back, then you might be better positioned to "share" what belongs to others. Until then, you're just a common thief.

[fcekuahd]

Yes, that is an incredibly ironic nickname you have...

It really does imply that you are planning to kill yourself.

"Copyrights and intellectual property as concepts are outdated and no longer apply?" What kind of fantasy world do you live in? They apply as much now as they did with the invention of the printing press. What do you think that the Internet is? It's another communication medium. It's made it technically easy to violate copyright, but it certainly hasn't changed the need for the underlying principles.

[gggg sssss]

talk to hand

so if youtube took down all of the copyrighted material, and left only the videos of people talking to their hand, or writing ONE WORLD on their hand, how many viewers will they have left?

And what content that anybody wants to watch have YOU created?

[Penguinisto]

Huh?

No, let me reprhase that ...***?

Lookit - copyright in and of itself is needed. Linux and the GPL
rely on copyright just as much as Windows and its EULA does.

Intellectual Property (the proper term, not the abused version
bandied about in certain quarters) is a necessary product and
currency of the Information Age (at least at this time).

Dunno what you were thinking when you wrote your post...

/P

[idiotkiller]

incredible, especially from a CNET editor

this opinion is incredible, especially coming from an editor of a website that professes to be on the cutting edge of technology.

copyrights and intellectual property as concepts are outdated and no longer apply. YouTube is the actual reflection of reality, a social site where people gather and share what they like in common, original and "copyrighted" alike. it's what people ALREADY do in real life and HAVE been doing ever since culture as a concept came about for humans.

this is just the natural evolution of what the internet can and MUST be. Viacom, ironically enough, represents old media that needs to evolve with the times or get OUT of the way.

[peteraltschuler]

Here's a suggestion for you, other than suicide

If copyrights and intellectual property no longer apply, then you should do whatever job you do... for free! After all, once you're paid the first time for creating a report or making a latte or delivering a package, all the other times should be done without charge. Your boss isn't getting any additional value from something you've already done, so why pay you? Of course, you'll still have to pay for food, gas, rent, and the rest -- just like the artists and authors and composers who turn out the material you "share." If they're not going to be paid for their work, why create it? Then, with nothing new, you may just have to hum to yourself. If you're ready to barter, exchanging something of value for something that, apparently, has some worth to you (or you wouldn't want to "share" it), then you're opinion may be valid. Or, if you're open to the idea that, if someone needs transportation, they should just "share" your car... without telling you... or bringing it back, then you might be better positioned to "share" what belongs to others. Until then, you're just a common thief.

[fcekuahd]

Yes, that is an incredibly ironic nickname you have...

It really does imply that you are planning to kill yourself.

"Copyrights and intellectual property as concepts are outdated and no longer apply?" What kind of fantasy world do you live in? They apply as much now as they did with the invention of the printing press. What do you think that the Internet is? It's another communication medium. It's made it technically easy to violate copyright, but it certainly hasn't changed the need for the underlying principles.

[gggg sssss]

talk to hand

so if youtube took down all of the copyrighted material, and left only the videos of people talking to their hand, or writing ONE WORLD on their hand, how many viewers will they have left?

And what content that anybody wants to watch have YOU created?

[Penguinisto]

Huh?

No, let me reprhase that ...***?

Lookit - copyright in and of itself is needed. Linux and the GPL
rely on copyright just as much as Windows and its EULA does.

Intellectual Property (the proper term, not the abused version
bandied about in certain quarters) is a necessary product and
currency of the Information Age (at least at this time).

Dunno what you were thinking when you wrote your post...

/P

[randymorris]

maybe a better idea...

yesterday i had heard about a movie called idiocracy while listening to the twit podcast (free). i watched a few clips on youtube and this solidified my interest and i purchased the dvd last night. the movie retailed at walmart for $20 and i normally would not pay that much for a dvd. but because i was certain i would like the movie, i made the purchase. a similar effect occurred with me and a bunch of my friends concerning a video game called world of warcraft. none of us had any interest in playing a computer video game at the time. however, we came across a clip on youtube about a character name leeroy jenkins. this clip peaked our interest so much we had to try the game. two years later we have $3000 invested in this game between the three of us in subscription fees, upgrades, and buying online gold, all due to one video clip on youtube. i have heard many other player of world of warcraft that have admitted to having the same clip have the same effect on them.

my point?

that there is a tremendous value in these video clips. and yes, maybe from a short sighted view, protecting the "traditional" business paradigm might seem logical and "safe", but the only true logic takes into account what we have learned from experience, not just what makes sense on paper. and experience has very unfailingly shown is that people will share information and media. like the war on drugs, no matter how much money or people or tracking or anything you throw at it, people WILL find a way. so is it smarter to anger all those who have any interest in your product by making it more difficult and frustrating to use. and one of the biggest truths about life is that some things change and some things stay the same. a much wiser approach would be to try and determine which things will change (medium of information we use to make decisions) and which things will not (people are visual, gregarious and like free stuff. youtube provided a community that well addresses all these, and it is obvious they are successful).
so viacom needs to step up, find a way to use to take advantage of the new situation instead of wasting more money on legal crap than they would have lost in protecting their old scheme of things.

[randymorris]

maybe a better idea...

yesterday i had heard about a movie called idiocracy while listening to the twit podcast (free). i watched a few clips on youtube and this solidified my interest and i purchased the dvd last night. the movie retailed at walmart for $20 and i normally would not pay that much for a dvd. but because i was certain i would like the movie, i made the purchase. a similar effect occurred with me and a bunch of my friends concerning a video game called world of warcraft. none of us had any interest in playing a computer video game at the time. however, we came across a clip on youtube about a character name leeroy jenkins. this clip peaked our interest so much we had to try the game. two years later we have $3000 invested in this game between the three of us in subscription fees, upgrades, and buying online gold, all due to one video clip on youtube. i have heard many other player of world of warcraft that have admitted to having the same clip have the same effect on them.

my point?

that there is a tremendous value in these video clips. and yes, maybe from a short sighted view, protecting the "traditional" business paradigm might seem logical and "safe", but the only true logic takes into account what we have learned from experience, not just what makes sense on paper. and experience has very unfailingly shown is that people will share information and media. like the war on drugs, no matter how much money or people or tracking or anything you throw at it, people WILL find a way. so is it smarter to anger all those who have any interest in your product by making it more difficult and frustrating to use. and one of the biggest truths about life is that some things change and some things stay the same. a much wiser approach would be to try and determine which things will change (medium of information we use to make decisions) and which things will not (people are visual, gregarious and like free stuff. youtube provided a community that well addresses all these, and it is obvious they are successful).
so viacom needs to step up, find a way to use to take advantage of the new situation instead of wasting more money on legal crap than they would have lost in protecting their old scheme of things.