--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well Viacom have said: > > "There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take > the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous > value in the process. > > "This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and > talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to > make possible this innovation and creativity." > > They have a point, a point which is also central to any battlecries on > this group when sites have not honoured vloggers creative commons or > copyright licenses.
That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same argument that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to aggregate our content sans repercussion. The fact that Viacom already got paid for the content isn't relevant. They already got their advertising money when they aired the shows originally. That doesn't make the footage any less theirs or any more available for YouTube to allow others to aggregate and collect page views and subscriptions by way of piracy instead of content creation. > Unlike Viacom I would not say that youtube are destroying value, they > are adding value but in a way thats beyond the reach of the infringed > creators/owners of the content, so I suppose as far as Viacom are > concerned this damages the value of Viacoms own service. YouTube is _adding_ value because they are showing these videos to people that would never have seen them. If you don't have cable television or your carrier doesn't have the right channel, you can't see the Dave Chappelle show. You can watch it on YouTube anywhere in the world. The problem is that the added value is mostly displaced. The show gains more fans, but the show doesn't get any more hits. The channel doesn't get any more hits. The advertisers don't get any more recognition, since their ads aren't included in the uploaded clip. The producers, directors, etc. aren't credited because the credits at the end of the 30 minute show aren't seen. Nobody new subscribes to the "Dave Chappelle Channel". New subscribers add "I_pirated_Dave_Chappelle's_Show", because they want to be there when the next free clip drops. That's why it's a big deal now that Viacom's going to be on Joost. They don't want the market value of the clips they're adding to Joost to be diluted by being simulcast on YouTube. Even if they don't win as far as clips that have already been posted and viewed, they're setting precedent that notice has been served if their future Joost content starts showing up on YouTube. -- Bill C. http://TheLab.blip.tv <http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/2007/03/viacom_sues_youtube.html> > Im reasonably sure most hosting services do not want to set a > precedent by being highly pro-active in policing for copyrighted > content. They want to leave that the the DMCA system where the rights > holder has to complain, because if they havent got a technological > solution to do it properly then it will cost them a lot of human > labour. The other factor is if course whether copyrighted clips that > youtube has no rights to, have been a central part of their business > plan and userbase. Id sure love to know what percentrage of youtube > video views fall into this category, as opposed to all the content > that is now officially licenced (eg BBC) or created by independent > people (eg vlogs). > > Anybody got any idea how long that youtube testtube stuff has been > available? They have a facility where people can replace their > unlicensed music in the audio track of your video, with music that > youtube is officially allowed to have on their site. I havent looked > at the available tracklist, but at least there is now a clear way that > people could do sing along/dance along videos to commercial music and > know that they arent being naughty. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Zenophon Abraham > <thisiswar3005@> wrote: > > > > Viacom's a stupid organization. They'll lose big > > time. I thnk Google should just buy them and fire > > Summer Redstone. > > > > Z > > > > --- Heath <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > Check it > > > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/ > > > > > > I mean seriously, 1 billion dollars?!?! Give me a > > > freaking > > > break...I worry about the future I really do....I > > > mean yeah, they > > > have got content but 1 billion?!? Get real..... > > > > > > Interesting that this announcement comes on the > > > heals of Viacom > > > saying that they are going to create a site where > > > people > > > can "leagaly" mash up their work.......Ah...corprate > > > politics at it's > > > finest..... > > > > > > NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has > > > sued YouTube and > > > its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court > > > for alleged > > > copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 > > > billion in damages. > > > > > > Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 > > > unauthorized video clips > > > from its cable networks, which also include Comedy > > > Central, VH1 and > > > Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular > > > video-sharing Web > > > site. > > > > > > The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of > > > long-simmering tensions > > > between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom > > > demanded that YouTube > > > remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after > > > several months of > > > talks between the companies broke down. > > > > > > In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's > > > business practices, > > > saying it has "built a lucrative business out of > > > exploiting the > > > devotion of fans to others' creative works in order > > > to enrich itself > > > and its corporate parent Google." > > > > > > Viacom said YouTube's business model, "which is > > > based on building > > > traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed > > > content, is clearly > > > illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright > > > laws." > > > > > > A representative for Google didn't immediately > > > respond to a request > > > for comment. > > > > > > Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube > > > over copyrights, > > > but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric > > > Co.'s NBC > > > Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing > > > site to license > > > their material. > > > > > > Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi > > > SA, had threatened > > > to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated > > > music videos, but > > > later reached a licensing deal with them. > > > > > > Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court > > > for the Southern > > > District of New York and is also seeking an > > > injunction prohibiting > > > Google and YouTube from using its clips. > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > > in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. > > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 > > >
