Viacom sues youtube [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

StoneGold

02-02-2007, 08:16 PM

This is so stupid. The videos will give Viacom & the artists more exposure which could lead to better music sales, etc al.

Yeah, except Viacom doesn't have doesn't have a music division. They don't profit from artists selling music. They profit from people viewing the music on some Viacom-related media, such as MTV, and receiving money from advertisers. So you viewing their media on YouTube doesn't make them money in any way.

That said, there can still be music videos on YouTube. The problem is music videos with an MTV channel tag in the corner.

And seriously, how is YouTube giving MTV more exposure? You think it doesn't have market saturation at this point?

titanfan

02-02-2007, 08:19 PM

They're not really suing Youtube--at least not yet, they're just demanding that all of their content be removed. It's not unlike what WWE, etc. does with their stuff as well.

That won't stop people too much. People will just upload them again--yeah, they'll be deleted within a few hours, but it won't stop people from uploading them again, etc.

CDB

02-02-2007, 08:53 PM

and anything nick releated on youtube.

Ah hell!! Where the goes my one source of seeing all the unaired My Life as a Teenage Robot espiodes. Because Nick is sure as hell is not showing them here in the US.:mad:

StoneGold

02-02-2007, 08:55 PM

Ah hell!! Where the goes my one source of seeing all the unaired My Life as a Teenage Robot espiodes. Because Nick is sure as hell is not showing them here in the US.:mad:

It's called Bit Torrent. Because it's about as legal as you watching them on YouTube.

DDM

02-03-2007, 03:14 PM

That may be true, but it's also irrelevant. Neither you nor I have the right to decide how to market and distribute someone else's product.

Viacom does not want to sue Youtube because they know it might create a backlash against Viacom.

Posting virtually anything on Youtube is what makes it great. You can type in a key word & find almost anything. Viacom, with threatening a lawsuit, is doing more damage to itself as a company in the long run. Yes, it may be irrelevent & Viacom owns those videos, but posting all of those videos still give Viacom great exposure regardless.

This reminds me of the Metallica lawsuit from a few years back. The lawsuit hurt Metallica in the long run.

Kevin M.

02-03-2007, 03:58 PM

Another example of big buisness messing something up.

Spike-X

02-03-2007, 10:06 PM

They're not really suing Youtube--at least not yet, they're just demanding that all of their content be removed.

Not only Viacom's actual content, but any video that shows up in a keyword search for anything that might have to do with a Viacom property.

This is blatant corporate...I can't even call it greed, because it's not like they're losing money from this. It's sheer infantile foot-stamping selfish corporate dick-waving. "It's mine, and you can't have it! Mine mine mine mine MINE!!!"

StoneGold

02-04-2007, 02:51 AM

Viacom does not want to sue Youtube because they know it might create a backlash against Viacom.

OK, that's just plain wrong right there. Like Viacom cares. Hell, if they did, they wouldn't be telling Youtube to take down their stuff in the first place. The lawsuit happens if Youtube doesn't take down their stuff. Suing Youtube is not killing puppy dogs. What, you're going to stop watching Two and a Half Men because of this? I know you need your Jon Cryer fix.

xerces213

03-23-2007, 07:04 PM

So I am not liking you tube lately because they now remove recent t.v. shows and stuff so if i miss something i can't just go catch up on you tube like for example Smallville i missed that last night and i was looking forward to watching it but i can no longer do so.

Magneto_X

03-23-2007, 07:07 PM

x:

Sure it's annoying when things are deleted but don't worry so much.

People just post them again. And again etc.

Just wait a while and in a few weeks/months it'll be back.

GRANT!

03-23-2007, 07:11 PM

xerces213

03-23-2007, 07:13 PM

yeah actually the day after Ghost Rider came out it was on there now i can understand why that was deleted but a t.v. show come on
it isn't like watching it on you tube is going to stop people from wanting to buy the DVD sets i still do an i have seen like every episode

Legato

03-23-2007, 07:29 PM

Better off doing torrents or itunes to catch shows you missed.

It's only two bucks at iTunes.

It seems the only reason why I tune to youtube now is to watch ROH vids. The thing with torrents though it takes a long time to download on most cases and some people just cant afford two dollars just to download a vid on iTunes.

Wish there was a better alternative than Youtube.

The Xenos

03-23-2007, 10:31 PM

It's funny. Here I was complaing about anime fans being lazy when they watch anime on YouTube and bitch when episodes are taken down.

Now I'm going to the opposite conrer and start complaing about Viacom being too harsh on YouTube.

Personally, I don't care much for seeing copyright material on YouTube. I think it's pretty stupid to post such stuff there. Of course it's going to get taken down. Then reposted. Then taken down. Then.. yeah.

YouTube is a very.. interesting legal quagmire. (Giggity.) It's about people sharing video. People have done this before, but never so centralized. File sharing networks let people bootleg TV shows, but never so up front as with YouTube. It seems so stupid to do it so out in the open, I don't know why people bother. Well, besides purposefully trying to push buttons.

Personally, I prefer more underground filesharing software and leaving YouTube for videos users created themselves. If you're going to bootleg stuff online, use something smarter and less noticeable than YouTube. Hell, even bit torrent is smarter and less obvious than that.

Then again, what if a user does a fanfilm or uses music in their movie without getting permission. Do those get taken down? It's a really grey area. With fanfilms and fan made music videos, I'm a side more with the users posting them than people posting stuff like full episodes of anime or other TV shows.

IamtheRock3

03-24-2007, 08:53 AM

Well fanfilms are comic book related a lot of the time

comics fanbase is a lot of net users. Not all of them of course, not even the majaroty maybem but a good amount, which mean why ticked them off if they dont have to. Also fanfilm dont make money and think some writers like them. Also could create buzz for DC and marvel own movies

Heck think some got jobs in the big companies

Question about this lawsuite

Googgle just purchase Youtube, so Can they get sued for misdeed of youtube BEFORE they sign on

SUPERECWFAN1

03-24-2007, 09:02 AM

Jon Stewart has pretty much came out in favor of Youtube judging from his show a few days back. Saying that getting him exposure via Youtube works to attract fans to the show.

Anyhow its likely this will go down ala the VCR. How is Google profiting from this beyond attracting advertisers. Even if they shut down Youtube the genie is outta the bootle and other sites will pop up.NBC and Fox are coming togethor to do a free TV streaming service online ala Youtube . They know where the FUTURE lies now.

Google has Billions , and as they claim they have found provisions in the copyright law to argue this. Do I feel Summer Redstone is f-cked ? Yep....he's filed a costly lawsuit while competiors are starting up their own Youtubes. Redstone should have started a Viacom streaming service instead of this. Your a f-cking millionaire and have cable/media conglomorate at your command and this is your solution ? It fits he's a 80+ yearold man facing a future he doesn't understand.

IamtheRock3

03-24-2007, 09:11 AM

Does Youtube help or hurt-think it depends on what level you are, and what top of entetaiment

think it very possibe it helps Jon stewart but hurts other shows

Google may have some loopholes to get around this

"I don't copyright shows, we tell the people that copyright material is against the rule and we take 100's of copyright stuff everyday, we just create the tecnelocy for people to share thier personal videos and music. It up to them how they use it. You dont SUE CD burner software for people making bootlegs do you. Then why sue us"

Totaly BS argument, but argument be use with success before

Other tried this, some failed, some didnt. Depends on how big of lawyer you got. Both google and viacom have tons of money. So both can stetch this boy out for a while

Copper

03-24-2007, 09:24 AM

Actually Viacom has a couple of similar services called iFilm and they bought the Atom films site which lets you upload indie film clips and have people see and rate them. They also entered an agreement with Juiced that will show Viacom content online so you could say that Youtube is taking away their business if its allowed to continue. So from that perspective I can see why they're a bit antagonistic about YouTube and Google.

Tish-the-Scorpion

03-24-2007, 04:55 PM

This is so stupid. The videos will give Viacom & the artists more exposure which could lead to better music sales, etc al.agreed in fact that was the only reason i was going to you tube.especially when it cammed to older music videos.viacome doesn't care about the artists they want people to watch their shitty bet/mtv programs for the NEW videos.

Tish-the-Scorpion

03-24-2007, 05:04 PM

That said, there can still be music videos on YouTube. The problem is music videos with an MTV channel tag in the corner.
no youtube was getting rid of ALL the music vids,viacom related or not.

blackdragon6

03-24-2007, 05:10 PM

agreed in fact that was the only reason i was going to you tube.especially when it cammed to older music videos..same here, the other shit on there rarely if ever interested me.if it wasn't for youtube a lot of those old school rap vids would have been lost in obscurity.keep in mind theres no old school rap video channel yet (and i honestly doubt there ever will be).and i'm not talking about a program block either.

no youtube was getting rid of ALL the music vids,viacom related or not.yep,i had vids in my favorites that was totally unrelated to viacom.but they was removed anyway :mad:

Toreador

03-24-2007, 05:37 PM

At least there's still dailymotion. I've been watching Heroes episodes that I missed (the NBC site stutters too much to enjoy or follow) and I even watched DOA there.

The Xenos

03-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Jon Stewart has pretty much came out in favor of Youtube judging from his show a few days back. Saying that getting him exposure via Youtube works to attract fans to the show.

Wow. That was pretty awesome.

saw it here
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=84159
(Though it'd be funny if it was on YouTube.)

Anyhow its likely this will go down ala the VCR. How is Google profiting from this beyond attracting advertisers. Even if they shut down Youtube the genie is outta the bootle and other sites will pop up.NBC and Fox are coming togethor to do a free TV streaming service online ala Youtube . They know where the FUTURE lies now.

Google has Billions , and as they claim they have found provisions in the copyright law to argue this. Do I feel Summer Redstone is f-cked ? Yep....he's filed a costly lawsuit while competiors are starting up their own Youtubes. Redstone should have started a Viacom streaming service instead of this. Your a f-cking millionaire and have cable/media conglomorate at your command and this is your solution ? It fits he's a 80+ yearold man facing a future he doesn't understand.

Does Redstone think the internet is a series of tubes too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

StoneGold

03-24-2007, 07:04 PM

Wow. That was pretty awesome.

saw it here
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=84159
(Though it'd be funny if it was on YouTube.)

Does Redstone think the internet is a series of tubes too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

It doesn't get the quote, so it's not as relative, but...

Viacom is starting their own download service. Hence them suing. THat, and since Google took over Youtube, they are an entity actually worth suing.

SUPERECWFAN1

03-24-2007, 07:18 PM

It doesn't get the quote, so it's not as relative, but...

Viacom is starting their own download service. Hence them suing. THat, and since Google took over Youtube, they are an entity actually worth suing.

Viacom wants to find a way to charge people for the service I'm betting and knows a free alternative kills them. But Viacom is f-cked anyhow regardless. They can stop Youtube but theres a dozen other sites where people will post video clips and all.

This is almost like the VCR case in a way. All Youtube has to argue is their not letting people file share ..ect ect. Its the users who are contributing the clips and all.

K.O.V.G

03-24-2007, 08:25 PM

Once youtube got as poplular as myspace I knew big companys were going to try and take them down. Oh well what can you if stuff is taking off of it we just have to deal with and move, and besides there are other sites besides the Tube.

xerces213

03-24-2007, 08:33 PM

what other sites are like youtube
because although i am not a big fan right now due to the viacom lawsuit i still use
because they still have spiderman TAS which is awesome

K.O.V.G

03-24-2007, 08:38 PM

They are Torrents ya know.

xerces213

03-24-2007, 08:57 PM

They are Torrents ya know.

yeah i know of torrents but i am not a big fan it takes to long and my computer doesn't have enough memory

K.O.V.G

03-24-2007, 09:02 PM

you must have dial up then?

Toreador

03-24-2007, 09:25 PM

what other sites are like youtube
because although i am not a big fan right now due to the viacom lawsuit i still use
because they still have spiderman TAS which is awesome

Try dailymotion and veoh.

StoneGold

03-24-2007, 10:07 PM

Viacom wants to find a way to charge people for the service I'm betting and knows a free alternative kills them. But Viacom is f-cked anyhow regardless. They can stop Youtube but theres a dozen other sites where people will post video clips and all.

This is almost like the VCR case in a way. All Youtube has to argue is their not letting people file share ..ect ect. Its the users who are contributing the clips and all.

The difference being they control the VCR. The problem is, this is like Napster, as opposed to later fileshare services that were non-centralized. Not only is Youtube centralized, it has a major corporate owner. The very fact that they can block things would seem to prove that they could do more to not violate someone else's copyright.

xerces213

03-25-2007, 10:16 AM

you must have dial up then?

no i don't i have broadband but the ones i have used took a while or didn't finish

IamtheRock3

03-25-2007, 04:22 PM

The difference being they control the VCR. The problem is, this is like Napster, as opposed to later fileshare services that were non-centralized. Not only is Youtube centralized, it has a major corporate owner. The very fact that they can block things would seem to prove that they could do more to not violate someone else's copyright.

Yea but everytime they block something, multiple versions of the same vid they stop, pop up

So as long as they do a LITTLE effort in blocking copyright they might avoid a law suit, they can say it the users.

Kind of like those MMORGS where you can make version of copyright charcters if your smart enough. That how marvel failed its lawsuit

The argument could be faulty, but if you have a good lawyer, you can avoid it

The Xenos

03-25-2007, 05:37 PM

And Marvel filed that suit because they wanted to make their own online game.

xerces213

03-25-2007, 09:24 PM

And Marvel filed that suit because they wanted to make their own online game.

yeah but it isn't like the heroes on COH actually had the powers of marvel characters except for the fact that you could give wolverine claws
it isn't like the spidey rip-off could stick to walls
i don't think it was a necessary lawsuit it isn't like they made a team as a part of the story that looked like the x-men.

xerces213

03-25-2007, 09:27 PM

uhhh, spiderman TAS only goes to episode 34 so far
i guess i have to wait for the person to post them
at least that is able to stay on there

StoneGold

03-26-2007, 01:37 AM

Yea but everytime they block something, multiple versions of the same vid they stop, pop up

So as long as they do a LITTLE effort in blocking copyright they might avoid a law suit, they can say it the users.

Kind of like those MMORGS where you can make version of copyright charcters if your smart enough. That how marvel failed its lawsuit

The argument could be faulty, but if you have a good lawyer, you can avoid it
The two cases are nothing alike. While I can understand why Marvel was suing, as they were trying to put together their own MMO, they were suing because, with the tools Cryptic provided, you could create a half-assed, kinda-sorta lookalike to their heroes, more or less. And honestly, Marvel might have been able to win something like this, if they had pursued the defense of their copyrights more vigorously. But given how many half-assed versions of Marvel characters appear in other comics, there is precedent.

Whereas with the Viacom case, I can use Youtube to upload CSI: New York. Which they make money on via page advertising. So not only does Viacom not make money off this, but someone else is. You don't see the difference here?

IamtheRock3

03-26-2007, 05:57 AM

The two cases are nothing alike. While I can understand why Marvel was suing, as they were trying to put together their own MMO, they were suing because, with the tools Cryptic provided, you could create a half-assed, kinda-sorta lookalike to their heroes, more or less. And honestly, Marvel might have been able to win something like this, if they had pursued the defense of their copyrights more vigorously. But given how many half-assed versions of Marvel characters appear in other comics, there is precedent.

Whereas with the Viacom case, I can use Youtube to upload CSI: New York. Which they make money on via page advertising. So not only does Viacom not make money off this, but someone else is. You don't see the difference here?

Oh there a diffence

But both cases you dont have to COMPLETLY stop the audience from using your device to break copyright

You just have to show an effort. They can say "Hey we just made the device up to the user what to do with it. Same with CD burners, and Bittorrents"

hey bet the 2 I just mention breaks more copyright laws then youtuble

Youtube just more user freindly is all

Againt one can say the argument BS loophole, but it enough of a loophole to save him

Toreador

03-26-2007, 11:07 PM

xerces213

03-26-2007, 11:10 PM

Just how many people actually pay attention to ads on Youtube? I've been on dozens of times and barely even noticed any ads. And so far no advertisers have even got a whiff of my money. Other than Ebay (which I've been to way before I even heard of Youtube) what other ads are there?

i see ring tone adds
but other than that i haven't seen any

StoneGold

03-27-2007, 12:50 AM

Oh there a diffence

But both cases you dont have to COMPLETLY stop the audience from using your device to break copyright

You just have to show an effort. They can say "Hey we just made the device up to the user what to do with it. Same with CD burners, and Bittorrents"

hey bet the 2 I just mention breaks more copyright laws then youtuble

Youtube just more user freindly is all

Againt one can say the argument BS loophole, but it enough of a loophole to save him

Again, the difference is Youtube still maintains total control, and worse, the material is all on their servers. So it isn't like VCR's or Bittorrent, where everything is decentralized and user-based. And it's not like the Marvel thing, because that is really apples and oranges. This is closer to Napster, in that Napster also was centralized, so there was something to attack.

xerces213

03-27-2007, 09:08 AM

Again, the difference is Youtube still maintains total control, and worse, the material is all on their servers. So it isn't like VCR's or Bittorrent, where everything is decentralized and user-based. And it's not like the Marvel thing, because that is really apples and oranges. This is closer to Napster, in that Napster also was centralized, so there was something to attack.

You admit their similar????

The Xenos

03-27-2007, 07:14 PM

Now I know how Viacom feels.

A friend of mine made a fan video using music from Family Guy and video from the anime Naruto. He posted it on an Anime Music Videos site.

Now it's on YouTube. A couple dozen times. Most of them were uploaded badly so the music doesn't synch right with the video. Plus you have tons of idiots commenting on it and even a few who act like they made it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jqrrLSvi-Q

Somedays, I wish YouTube would stop being so stupid or just die.

Same thing pissed me off with Napster. People would relabel songs incoreectly. For example, you'd have Metallica credited as doing that Christmas song by the Transsiberian Orchestra or have a song labeld Chips Ahoy Commercial Song instead of Sing Sing Sing by Louie Prima.

One of the worst ones was Weird Al. Weird Al got stick of songs being attributed to him wrongly on Napster. Luckily, someone made a site to correct all these mislabeled mp3s.
http://free.house.cx/~eil/etc/notal_list.html

It's amazing how lazy and stupid people are.

StoneGold

03-27-2007, 07:21 PM

You admit their similar????

What, to Napster? They are very much the same. Realize thought that Napster got taken down. As to the VCR, no, they are very different. The VCR is a user-controlled recording device. YouTube is a company-controlled hosting service/viewing device.

xerces213

03-28-2007, 08:35 AM

What, to Napster? They are very much the same. Realize thought that Napster got taken down. As to the VCR, no, they are very different. The VCR is a user-controlled recording device. YouTube is a company-controlled hosting service/viewing device.

no to the vcr you said it was like comparing apples to oranges and well they are both fruits so you admit it is at least a similar thing.

The Xenos

03-28-2007, 05:30 PM

Yeah, but Napster or the VCR didn't have a centralized server that stored the information. Though Napster did have a central reigstry for the program and users, unlike Bit Torrent. So Napter is a bit more like YouTube than Bit Torrent. Still, YouTube actually store the illegal content on their servers where as Napster just allowed users logged into their servers to trade the content peer to peer. YouTube isn't quite just peer to peer, YouTube is actually storing the content on their servers. It's more of a file uploading site than a peer to peer networking program like Napster.

Ah. Napster. I remember it before it sold out and became some commie renting BS program. I remember using Napster and living across the street from where it was created. It was like a new Boston Tea Party. Civil disobedience against laws that are outdated and corrupt companies who got their tendrils into our lawmakers.

With other peer to peer programs like Direct Connect or even old IRC, the revolution will continute. YouTube is somewhat part of it, but they are poorly set up to combat it. As I said, it's less peer to peer as much as it is that they're blatantly storing illegal content on their server. Bit Torrent is somewhere in between. Easier to catch, but not as easy to catch as YouTube.

Of course, we could always go back to VCRs and copying stuff on VHS. Though I guess that would now be DVD-Rs or even those flash drives that fit in your pocket.

What bugs me the most is that the MPAA and RIAA thinks the solution to all this is DRM prgrams, which are all too big brother for my tastes. I don't want programs watchng me and my media. I don't want files that delete themselves.

While I do belive in suppporting record labels and buying albums and CDs still, I can't support how far the RIAA and others want to take things.

xerces213

03-28-2007, 06:08 PM

Yeah I was somewhat joking with the whole apples oranges things i get what everyone is saying and yes, youtube is more like napster.
the apples oranges thing was brought to you through me via the Colbert Report

StoneGold

03-28-2007, 06:57 PM

At the end of the day, DRM only punishes people who buy their entertainment legally. If you pirate, there is no DRM.

Taltos

03-28-2007, 07:35 PM

Just how many people actually pay attention to ads on Youtube? I've been on dozens of times and barely even noticed any ads. And so far no advertisers have even got a whiff of my money. Other than Ebay (which I've been to way before I even heard of Youtube) what other ads are there?

well I think youre only going to notice the ads that are geared to you. i.e. I saw the 300 ads and the ufc ads but I cant remeber any of the other ads.

xerces213

04-20-2007, 06:07 PM

SUPERECWFAN1

04-21-2007, 07:46 AM

So I have noticed Viacom has set somewhat of a double standard. (I am assuming that Viacom owns CW I don't know if this is correct or not. So please do correct me if I am wrong about who owns CW.) Continuing now I had missed an episode of Smallville last night so I went to you tube and typed in the episode nothing came up but the previews not the whole episode. So I have come to the conclusion that Viacom is letting Youtube promote them but not show their shows now isn't that a bit hypocritical of them.

NBC/Fox is coming togethor to launch a free online service so you can watch their shows. So it wouldn't shock me here if CBS/NBC decided to do that with the CW.

Perhaps they see that the future is to let Youtube promote things.

xerces213

04-21-2007, 09:20 AM

NBC/Fox is coming togethor to launch a free online service so you can watch their shows. So it wouldn't shock me here if CBS/NBC decided to do that with the CW.

Well no more on youtube then.

Perhaps they see that the future is to let Youtube promote things.

I don't think that is unfair of them to do so.

"Don't post our t.v. shows on youtube but it is completely ok for you to put up previews of our shows."

Now they probably never told them that but that is how it seems.