These so-called "new media professionals" don't know what the fuck they're talking about. There's idiots who will offer counter opinions on anything. It's as clear a case of copyright infringement as there is. The content belongs to Viacom, it's clearly copyrighted and You tube is supplying it without Viacom's consent. Not only that but what hasn't been discussed in the press and supposedly one of the final straws for Viacom was that You Tube had the fucking nerve to place a "You Tube" copyright on Viacom's content as if they were the originators.
YouTube and Intellectual property....
- Thread starter Ozzy
- Start date
Interesting theory
(not saying I buy it... not saying I don't)
http://www.michiknows.com/2007/03/14/maybe-google-wanted-to-be-sued-youtube-and-plan-b/
(not saying I buy it... not saying I don't)
http://www.michiknows.com/2007/03/14/maybe-google-wanted-to-be-sued-youtube-and-plan-b/
Interesting and in toays lawsuit crazy climate... very believable.
Although I don't know if Googles share holders would agree with billion dollar lawsuits and pissing off the most powerful corporations in America is a good way to conduct your business.
I mean... If Google wants badly to become a player in the entertainment and media field as it appears they do. Picking a fight with Viacom is not the best way to go about that.
Although I don't know if Googles share holders would agree with billion dollar lawsuits and pissing off the most powerful corporations in America is a good way to conduct your business.
I mean... If Google wants badly to become a player in the entertainment and media field as it appears they do. Picking a fight with Viacom is not the best way to go about that.
Thought I'd add this article from Brand Republic to this thread. Seems as if Google still hasn't figured out how to market YouTube to advertisers:
YouTube is worst media owner for ads service
YouTube's strategy to carry ads has got off to a rocky start, with UK agencies ranking the video-sharing website as the worst performing digital media owner on sales service performance.
The second Digital Media Owners Image Survey, commissioned by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, asked UK agencies what their overall experience of dealing with digital media owners was.
Only 17% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that dealing with YouTube was a good experience. AOL topped the poll and, along with MSN, was one of only two media owners to register an approval rating of more than 50%.
The result will provoke concern at YouTube's new owner Google, which has taken care to roll out advertising on YouTube in a bid to generate a return on its $1.65bn investment in buying the site.
"You have to worry about YouTube," said Nigel Gwilliam, head of digital at the IPA.
"It has offered appalling service and has finished behind a rival, Facebook, that doesn't even have a UK office and has faced industry scandal regarding BNP ads."
A Google spokesman claimed it was set on investing further to improve YouTube's ad offering.
YouTube is worst media owner for ads service
YouTube's strategy to carry ads has got off to a rocky start, with UK agencies ranking the video-sharing website as the worst performing digital media owner on sales service performance.
The second Digital Media Owners Image Survey, commissioned by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, asked UK agencies what their overall experience of dealing with digital media owners was.
Only 17% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that dealing with YouTube was a good experience. AOL topped the poll and, along with MSN, was one of only two media owners to register an approval rating of more than 50%.
The result will provoke concern at YouTube's new owner Google, which has taken care to roll out advertising on YouTube in a bid to generate a return on its $1.65bn investment in buying the site.
"You have to worry about YouTube," said Nigel Gwilliam, head of digital at the IPA.
"It has offered appalling service and has finished behind a rival, Facebook, that doesn't even have a UK office and has faced industry scandal regarding BNP ads."
A Google spokesman claimed it was set on investing further to improve YouTube's ad offering.
guess the supremes gave a big fuck you to intellectual property.
It hasn't even gone to the 2nd circuit yet.
But I can't say I'm very surprised at the ruling. YouTube has been pretty good at removing anything that the studios demand via the DMCA process... even legitimate fair use.
Still, summary judgment is a serious smack-down for Viacom's lawyers. It's hard to believe they went to trial. Score another win for new media.
Shit Florida broadcasters. Saw it on a local news app on my phone. They reported it as a Supreme court decision.
It's still a fuck you. And You Tube makes it very difficult for a major company like Viacom to remove their shit. They have to pay their legals to file on every single single instance of infringement. There's thousands maybe tens of thousands of instances. How much are they losing by you watching the Daily Show vs their potential legal bills.
It's still a fuck you. And You Tube makes it very difficult for a major company like Viacom to remove their shit. They have to pay their legals to file on every single single instance of infringement. There's thousands maybe tens of thousands of instances. How much are they losing by you watching the Daily Show vs their potential legal bills.
It's still a fuck you. And You Tube makes it very difficult for a major company like Viacom to remove their shit. They have to pay their legals to file on every single single instance of infringement. There's thousands maybe tens of thousands of instances.
I agree that it's a huge fuck you to Viacom. Anyone with a brain in old media knows the old revenue models are done. As I see it, all this legal posturing is buying time while they find another way to make money. If not, if they really placed such a huge bet on the outcome of this suit, then shareholders should sack management.
From Wikipedia, emphasis mine.
"On remand, the District Court ordered Napster to monitor the activities of its network and to block access to infringing material when notified of that material's location. Napster was unable to do this, and so shut down its service in July 2001."
YouTube has been very diligent about removing infringing material when requested to do so via the notification process. Actually, they've been so overzealous that they've had some complaints from the other side: people who have recordings deleted despite their fair use of source material.
The music industry also learned a lot from Napster and early peer to peer challenges. With YouTube, they've really embraced the technology for the most part. Many videos are uploaded by music labels themselves (e.g. vimeo) and have attached commercials. I think if YouTube deletes competition and the labels have a higher quality upload anyway, most people tend to put up with brief advertisements. I also think a lot of bands who make most of their money touring have realized that suppressing bootleg concert videos, which are essentially advertisements for the shows themselves, harms sales of tickets. In short, the music industry has really accepted the role of peer to peer media sharing when it comes short of album piracy. They're still fairly pissed off about things like Bit Torrent.
The studios, on the other hand, are basically where the music industry was ten years ago. It would almost be hilarious if it weren't so tragic that they have to replay the same thought process as the record companies.
Anyways, I think that YouTube can shoot down infringing material from the studios and still have enough to offer users such as music videos, user created content, public domain video, and orphaned works. Napster really didn't have a viable business once they lost all the music. Moreover their more pirating users drifted over to other sharing technologies once it became clear that Napster could not shield them from record labels.
"On remand, the District Court ordered Napster to monitor the activities of its network and to block access to infringing material when notified of that material's location. Napster was unable to do this, and so shut down its service in July 2001."
YouTube has been very diligent about removing infringing material when requested to do so via the notification process. Actually, they've been so overzealous that they've had some complaints from the other side: people who have recordings deleted despite their fair use of source material.
The music industry also learned a lot from Napster and early peer to peer challenges. With YouTube, they've really embraced the technology for the most part. Many videos are uploaded by music labels themselves (e.g. vimeo) and have attached commercials. I think if YouTube deletes competition and the labels have a higher quality upload anyway, most people tend to put up with brief advertisements. I also think a lot of bands who make most of their money touring have realized that suppressing bootleg concert videos, which are essentially advertisements for the shows themselves, harms sales of tickets. In short, the music industry has really accepted the role of peer to peer media sharing when it comes short of album piracy. They're still fairly pissed off about things like Bit Torrent.
The studios, on the other hand, are basically where the music industry was ten years ago. It would almost be hilarious if it weren't so tragic that they have to replay the same thought process as the record companies.
Anyways, I think that YouTube can shoot down infringing material from the studios and still have enough to offer users such as music videos, user created content, public domain video, and orphaned works. Napster really didn't have a viable business once they lost all the music. Moreover their more pirating users drifted over to other sharing technologies once it became clear that Napster could not shield them from record labels.
From what I recall and experienced... Napster was fairly diligent themselves in removing material when requested. They were blocking downloads to Metallica before they ever went to and lost in court. Youtube is playing with a shittly loophole and considering they're now part of the mega money bucks Google conglomerate, they should fucking know better. If anyone should and can afford to pay damages it's google. And people thought Gates and Microsoft were cut throat and stealing others intellectual property. Google not only gloms what they make off the creative peoples backs on youtube, but then they glom Apples IP in creating Android. So basically they allow some schmuck to post what is obviously someones copyrighted property and after it's gone viral a few million times they make the damaged party jump thru hoops and act like they're doing the them a favor by removing it. Curious if google turns over the ad revenue generated from those millions of hits to the damaged parties illegally posted property..
Google will make money the way the record studios who never paid out royalties to certain musicians made money: any way possible. Technology changes, the law struggles to keep up, and industry is turned upside-down. There's no use fisting the air at the inevitable.
We'll see how the appeals court sees things, though. None of this will be resolved for another few years and by then the entire landscape will be different.
We'll see how the appeals court sees things, though. None of this will be resolved for another few years and by then the entire landscape will be different.