YouTube and Intellectual property....
- Thread starter Ozzy
- Start date
No, it won't open any lawsuits at all. As soon as his lawyer contacts youtube/google, they will take down the offending video. That's all that they have to do under the law, and they've already made clear that they will follow this course.
Those who object to having their content on youtube will quickly succeed in getting their content removed from the site. Those with other opinions will cut a deal to get a cut out of the advertising revenue that google will soon be deriving from all those youtube eyeballs.
Those who object to having their content on youtube will quickly succeed in getting their content removed from the site. Those with other opinions will cut a deal to get a cut out of the advertising revenue that google will soon be deriving from all those youtube eyeballs.
And if YouTube starts taking down all this material.... whats left?
That's my point... they're either going to pay thru the nose or take down the very content that makes the site so viable. Napster started blocking all the material those who took issue with it and then there was virtually nothing left but the garbage no one wanted.
What Googles stock going for today? I'll bet it's considerably lower in 6 months because of this.
That's my point... they're either going to pay thru the nose or take down the very content that makes the site so viable. Napster started blocking all the material those who took issue with it and then there was virtually nothing left but the garbage no one wanted.
What Googles stock going for today? I'll bet it's considerably lower in 6 months because of this.
The whole question, in a broader sense, is how to serve up produced video content on the Web. YT works because it's a single destination -- that alone is of great value to owners of the content. That's why all the braodcast networks were each eyeing YT and trying to decide whether or not to buy them. I'd think that, by simply adding advertising to the content (the videos themselves), the owners would be satisfied that they were getting a return on their investment.
You notice that some of the networks are now advertising, at the end of their shows, that you can view the episode you just saw in it's entirety on their Web site. But I'd more likely go to YT to try and find it first. So if ABC sells Coke a :30 commercial that's placed in a "Desperate Housewives" episode, should they really care if someone sees it on their site or on YT's as long as Coke agrees to pay them for the eyeballs? In which case, I'd think YT would be billing ABC for the priviledge of hosting their content -- not the other way around.
You notice that some of the networks are now advertising, at the end of their shows, that you can view the episode you just saw in it's entirety on their Web site. But I'd more likely go to YT to try and find it first. So if ABC sells Coke a :30 commercial that's placed in a "Desperate Housewives" episode, should they really care if someone sees it on their site or on YT's as long as Coke agrees to pay them for the eyeballs? In which case, I'd think YT would be billing ABC for the priviledge of hosting their content -- not the other way around.
What did they expect?
Actually, it's a great illustration of how fast the culture is moving right now. A relatively underground phenomenon like YT can go main stream in a big way in a blink of an eye (and I deliberately chose to use "blink" -- this is exactly what Malcolm Gladwell was talking about).
Actually, it's a great illustration of how fast the culture is moving right now. A relatively underground phenomenon like YT can go main stream in a big way in a blink of an eye (and I deliberately chose to use "blink" -- this is exactly what Malcolm Gladwell was talking about).
I found this article today:
Universal hits MySpace with copyright suit
World's largest music company sues popular social networking site, claiming it allowed users to upload videos from its artists illegally and share with others.
November 17 2006: 5:27 PM EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, said Friday it filed a lawsuit against popular social networking site MySpace for infringing copyrights of thousands of its artists' works.
Universal, owned by French media giant Vivendi, filed the suit at the U.S. District Court Central District of California, Western Division.
The lawsuit accuses MySpace of allowing users to upload videos illegally and taking part in the infringement by re-formatting the videos to be played back or sent to others.
It follows several months of talks on music rights with News Corp.'s (Charts) MySpace, which broke down late Thursday, a source familiar with the discussions said.
It claims thousands of links to music from Universal's biggest artists, including Jay-Z and Gwen Stefani, are widely available on MySpace, even ahead of their release to music stores. It estimated maximum statutory damages for each copyrighted work at $150,000.
Earlier Friday, MySpace unveiled an enhanced copyright protection tool to make it easier for content owners to remove unauthorized material.
MySpace later described Universal's action as "meritless litigation," saying in a statement its procedures for removing illegal downloads lived up to laws protecting digital rights.
Protecting copyrighted material is one of the biggest challenges facing entertainment companies as they try to turn a profit off the growth of digital media outlets.
Music and TV companies have been in dispute with sites like MySpace and YouTube in the last year because of the ease with which their millions of users can upload and share songs and videos without having to pay.
"Businesses that seek to trade off on our content, and the hard work of our artists and songwriters, shouldn't be free to do so without permission and without fairly compensating the content creators," Universal Music said in a statement.
YouTube deal averts lawsuit
In the case of YouTube, now owned by Google Inc. (Charts), Universal Music reached a licensing agreement to give the site and its users access to thousands of music videos.
Other entertainment companies have been reluctant to take legal action against the likes of YouTube and MySpace because of the potential promotional exposure such sites may give to their artists. MySpace says it has more than 130 million users.
News of Universal's suit comes a day after News Corp. said Ross Levinsohn, the executive who led the $580-million acquisition of MySpace, had resigned from the company.
Universal Music Chief Executive Doug Morris had publicly hinted that his company could take legal action against MySpace and YouTube back in September. He said at the time that the two sites combined owed his company "tens of millions of dollars."
But the threat of legal action seemed less likely after Universal and other major record companies including Warner Music Group (Charts) and Sony BMG Music signed separate music video agreements with YouTube.
Last month Universal Music sued two smaller video sharing sites, Sony Pictures Entertainment's Grouper and independent site Bolt.com.
Big media seeks new Web blood
Universal hits MySpace with copyright suit
World's largest music company sues popular social networking site, claiming it allowed users to upload videos from its artists illegally and share with others.
November 17 2006: 5:27 PM EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Universal Music Group, the world's largest music company, said Friday it filed a lawsuit against popular social networking site MySpace for infringing copyrights of thousands of its artists' works.
Universal, owned by French media giant Vivendi, filed the suit at the U.S. District Court Central District of California, Western Division.
The lawsuit accuses MySpace of allowing users to upload videos illegally and taking part in the infringement by re-formatting the videos to be played back or sent to others.
It follows several months of talks on music rights with News Corp.'s (Charts) MySpace, which broke down late Thursday, a source familiar with the discussions said.
It claims thousands of links to music from Universal's biggest artists, including Jay-Z and Gwen Stefani, are widely available on MySpace, even ahead of their release to music stores. It estimated maximum statutory damages for each copyrighted work at $150,000.
Earlier Friday, MySpace unveiled an enhanced copyright protection tool to make it easier for content owners to remove unauthorized material.
MySpace later described Universal's action as "meritless litigation," saying in a statement its procedures for removing illegal downloads lived up to laws protecting digital rights.
Protecting copyrighted material is one of the biggest challenges facing entertainment companies as they try to turn a profit off the growth of digital media outlets.
Music and TV companies have been in dispute with sites like MySpace and YouTube in the last year because of the ease with which their millions of users can upload and share songs and videos without having to pay.
"Businesses that seek to trade off on our content, and the hard work of our artists and songwriters, shouldn't be free to do so without permission and without fairly compensating the content creators," Universal Music said in a statement.
YouTube deal averts lawsuit
In the case of YouTube, now owned by Google Inc. (Charts), Universal Music reached a licensing agreement to give the site and its users access to thousands of music videos.
Other entertainment companies have been reluctant to take legal action against the likes of YouTube and MySpace because of the potential promotional exposure such sites may give to their artists. MySpace says it has more than 130 million users.
News of Universal's suit comes a day after News Corp. said Ross Levinsohn, the executive who led the $580-million acquisition of MySpace, had resigned from the company.
Universal Music Chief Executive Doug Morris had publicly hinted that his company could take legal action against MySpace and YouTube back in September. He said at the time that the two sites combined owed his company "tens of millions of dollars."
But the threat of legal action seemed less likely after Universal and other major record companies including Warner Music Group (Charts) and Sony BMG Music signed separate music video agreements with YouTube.
Last month Universal Music sued two smaller video sharing sites, Sony Pictures Entertainment's Grouper and independent site Bolt.com.
Big media seeks new Web blood
Viacom sues You Tube for $1 billion
Let this be a lesson to everyone.....
Ozzy is never wrong.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/ViacomSuesYouTube.aspx?GT1=9215
"The lawsuit, the first big attack on the Google-owned video-sharing site, may just be a negotiating ploy. But it could be the first volley in a war between Google and its old-media rivals."
By Elizabeth Strott
Just days after Google (GOOG, news, msgs) CEO Eric Schmidt said that media companies will have no choice but to work with online sites such as YouTube, the first of the big media companies has responded -- with a $1 billion lawsuit.
Media giant Viacom (VIA, news, msgs) is charging that the video-sharing site, now owned by Google, has shown 160,000 of its videos without permission.
"Their 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," Viacom said.
Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said in a statement that the company has "not received the lawsuit but (is) confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree." Reyes said the suit would not "become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube."
Corporate arrogance?
One intellectual-property expert said he was "not surprised" by the suit.
"I think this is a problem for Google," said Justin Hughes, director of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law's Intellectual Property Law Program. "Google has had a series of situations where it looks like corporate arrogance regarding intellectual property."
Video: SueTube? Viacom sues Google over copyright infringement
In buying YouTube, Google bought a business model largely based on infringement, Hughes said. Google's Book Search Library Project also suggests a corporate disregard for intellectual property, he added.
Partners or rivals?
Schmidt's earlier comments may have been a way to put pressure on Viacom and other media conglomerates as the one-time video upstart tries to negotiate terms for licensing deals.
Last month, after talks about a licensing deal failed, YouTube said it would remove 100,000 Viacom clips, including a number from Comedy Central shows.
"The growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet," Schmidt said last week in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Conversations with Judy Woodruff."
The lawsuit "is an initial attempt to move negotiations along," Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck wrote in a note to clients today. "Both sides would be better served with an agreement."
But not everyone agrees. "Viacom's Web traffic is increasing nicely since it pulled content from 'GooTube,' " Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Capital, told Reuters. "There is certainly an opportunity for YouTube to do a deal with Viacom, but Viacom does not have to have a YouTube deal."
Policing the site
The problem with YouTube, Viacom and the other big media players say, is that it will pull copyright clips only after its been asked to do so, putting the burden of policing content on the copyright holders and allowing users to re-post illegal copies as soon as they are removed.
Google and YouTube are relying on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, which criminalizes technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures that control access to copyright works -- even when there is no actual infringement.
Let this be a lesson to everyone.....
Ozzy is never wrong.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/ViacomSuesYouTube.aspx?GT1=9215
"The lawsuit, the first big attack on the Google-owned video-sharing site, may just be a negotiating ploy. But it could be the first volley in a war between Google and its old-media rivals."
By Elizabeth Strott
Just days after Google (GOOG, news, msgs) CEO Eric Schmidt said that media companies will have no choice but to work with online sites such as YouTube, the first of the big media companies has responded -- with a $1 billion lawsuit.
Media giant Viacom (VIA, news, msgs) is charging that the video-sharing site, now owned by Google, has shown 160,000 of its videos without permission.
"Their 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," Viacom said.
Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said in a statement that the company has "not received the lawsuit but (is) confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree." Reyes said the suit would not "become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube."
Corporate arrogance?
One intellectual-property expert said he was "not surprised" by the suit.
"I think this is a problem for Google," said Justin Hughes, director of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law's Intellectual Property Law Program. "Google has had a series of situations where it looks like corporate arrogance regarding intellectual property."
Video: SueTube? Viacom sues Google over copyright infringement
In buying YouTube, Google bought a business model largely based on infringement, Hughes said. Google's Book Search Library Project also suggests a corporate disregard for intellectual property, he added.
Partners or rivals?
Schmidt's earlier comments may have been a way to put pressure on Viacom and other media conglomerates as the one-time video upstart tries to negotiate terms for licensing deals.
Last month, after talks about a licensing deal failed, YouTube said it would remove 100,000 Viacom clips, including a number from Comedy Central shows.
"The growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet," Schmidt said last week in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Conversations with Judy Woodruff."
The lawsuit "is an initial attempt to move negotiations along," Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck wrote in a note to clients today. "Both sides would be better served with an agreement."
But not everyone agrees. "Viacom's Web traffic is increasing nicely since it pulled content from 'GooTube,' " Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Capital, told Reuters. "There is certainly an opportunity for YouTube to do a deal with Viacom, but Viacom does not have to have a YouTube deal."
Policing the site
The problem with YouTube, Viacom and the other big media players say, is that it will pull copyright clips only after its been asked to do so, putting the burden of policing content on the copyright holders and allowing users to re-post illegal copies as soon as they are removed.
Google and YouTube are relying on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, which criminalizes technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures that control access to copyright works -- even when there is no actual infringement.
You flatter yourself. FWIW if any other idiot had made that post my response would have been the same. The fact that it was you, in light of recent postings makes my remark even the more poignant, see http://utopiaguide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=642446&postcount=97
What's interesting is that there seems to be a clear division in opinion about the law suit. Copyrite lawyers seem to support the suit; new media professionals side with Google and think it's more of a negotiating ploy by Viacom.
Take a look at this article from today's MediaWeek that quotes a bunch of new media guys:
Viacom's Suit May Go Down The (You)Tube
March 19, 2007
By Mike Shields, Mediaweek
NEW YORK -- Industry observers agree on two things regarding the $1 billion dollar lawsuit Viacom filed against Google last week: Viacom doesn't want to go to court, and Google will be just fine. Viacom contends that Google's YouTube unit was guilty of massive copyright violations. But some in the digital ad industry see this as simply a hardcore negotiating tactic, and a questionable one at that.
"Viacom and YouTube need each other the same way cable operators and cable networks need each other," said Bryan Wiener, president/COO at search specialty agency 360i, New York. "What's happening is similar to the high-stakes poker games that happen between the Comcasts and Comedy Centrals of the world."
And Viacom may be pushing its luck with the $1 billion figure. "Viacom is making a grave, strategic error," said Jordan Rohan, managing partner/ Internet analyst at RBC Capital Markets, New York. "They are being a bully. This is a dispute that doesn't need to be so public . . . so grandiose."
Viacom and Google executives declined to comment for this story.
Observers predict Google and Viacom will make a deal, as YouTube did last week when it signed with Viacom cousin CBS to showcase NCAA tournament highlights. Viacom even may need Google a lot more than Google needs Viacom. As Rohan put it, "Can you identify any users who left YouTube since Viacom pulled its content?" In fact, YouTube's traffic surged 40% since early February, when Viacom demanded that 100,000 of its clips be removed, per a report released last week by Web research firm Compete, Boston.
"[Viacom may be] thinking, 'Worst case scenario we end up with a dedicated channel on YouTube,'" said T.J. Mahony, managing director, consumer services at Compete. "They've created this ransom note of sorts to see if they can get more than everybody else."
Take a look at this article from today's MediaWeek that quotes a bunch of new media guys:
Viacom's Suit May Go Down The (You)Tube
March 19, 2007
By Mike Shields, Mediaweek
NEW YORK -- Industry observers agree on two things regarding the $1 billion dollar lawsuit Viacom filed against Google last week: Viacom doesn't want to go to court, and Google will be just fine. Viacom contends that Google's YouTube unit was guilty of massive copyright violations. But some in the digital ad industry see this as simply a hardcore negotiating tactic, and a questionable one at that.
"Viacom and YouTube need each other the same way cable operators and cable networks need each other," said Bryan Wiener, president/COO at search specialty agency 360i, New York. "What's happening is similar to the high-stakes poker games that happen between the Comcasts and Comedy Centrals of the world."
And Viacom may be pushing its luck with the $1 billion figure. "Viacom is making a grave, strategic error," said Jordan Rohan, managing partner/ Internet analyst at RBC Capital Markets, New York. "They are being a bully. This is a dispute that doesn't need to be so public . . . so grandiose."
Viacom and Google executives declined to comment for this story.
Observers predict Google and Viacom will make a deal, as YouTube did last week when it signed with Viacom cousin CBS to showcase NCAA tournament highlights. Viacom even may need Google a lot more than Google needs Viacom. As Rohan put it, "Can you identify any users who left YouTube since Viacom pulled its content?" In fact, YouTube's traffic surged 40% since early February, when Viacom demanded that 100,000 of its clips be removed, per a report released last week by Web research firm Compete, Boston.
"[Viacom may be] thinking, 'Worst case scenario we end up with a dedicated channel on YouTube,'" said T.J. Mahony, managing director, consumer services at Compete. "They've created this ransom note of sorts to see if they can get more than everybody else."