NationStates Jolt Archive

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6446193.stm)
Entertainment giant Viacom Media says it will sue web search engine Google and its video-sharing website YouTube for $1bn (£517m).

Viacom, which owns MTV and Nickelodeon, says YouTube uses its shows illegally.

Could this be the end for YouTube? Or will Google deploy the Lawyer Armour and repel all attacks?

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6446193.stm)


Could this be the end for YouTube? Or will Google deploy the Lawyer Armour and repel all attacks?
Gah, Viacom ought to get with the times. They keep making Youtube pull Daily Show clips - like, how stupid is that?! How short-sighted and out-of-touch do you have to be to not see that Youtube isn't drawing the audience away, it's drawing them in!



Edit: Ewww, did you really need to vote in that poll yourself? >.<

Gah, Viacom ought to get with the times. They keep making Youtube pull Daily Show clips - like, how stupid is that?! How short-sighted and out-of-touch do you have to be to not see that Youtube isn't drawing the audience away, it's drawing them in!



Edit: Ewww, did you really need to vote in that poll yourself? >.<

why does it matter if Daily Show clips are on YouTube if they're free on the comedy central website? advertising?

Edit: Ewww, did you really need to vote in that poll yourself? >.<

Yes, yes I did.

I doubt this will be a big problem for Google; they'll probably come to some sort of out of court settlement.

And I'm happy to give my share of Ifreann's hot loving to WYTYG.

why does it matter if Daily Show clips are on YouTube if they're free on the comedy central website? advertising?
*comes down from righteous rage high and starts thinking rationally again* :p

Yes, I know, of course Viacom wants to be the only one who has Daily Show clips online so that their site gets the traffic, which means they get to charge the advertisers more money - instead of others mooching off the pull of the clips on their sites.

The article in the OP pretty much says exactly that.

But seriously - I may well be wrong but I can't see increased web site ad revenue through increased traffic make anywhere near the same amount of money that increased TV viewership through increased "fame by Youtube" makes.

And I'm happy to give my share of Ifreann's hot loving to WYTYG.
Oh.

Now see, this is awkward. I was just about to offer you my share. :/

I doubt this will be a big problem for Google; they'll probably come to some sort of out of court settlement.

And I'm happy to give my share of Ifreann's hot loving to WYTYG.

Oh.

Now see, this is awkward. I was just about to offer you my share. :/
But.....but.....
I suppose that the inclusion of the poll makes this thread more worthwhile than this one on the same subject (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520605) that was posted several hours ago...?
Yes, and if it's not on the first page or in my sibscriptions thingy then it's outside the realm of my knowledge.


The two of you can share my share between the two of you too. Or someone else can have it. Either way, I'm not sure I particularly want any of Ifreann's hot loving. It'll probably involve Ruffy in some way, and he already thinks I'm a girl. :S

But.......but.......

Either way, I'm not sure I particularly want any of Ifreann's hot loving. It'll probably involve Ruffy in some way, and he already thinks I'm a girl. :S

Oh.

Now see, this is awkward. I was just about to offer you my share. :/

I say we both dump our shares on I V and leg it to watch the results from a safe distance.

I suppose that the inclusion of the poll makes this thread more worthwhile than this one on the same subject (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520605) that was posted several hours ago...?

Oh.

Now see, this is awkward. I was just about to offer you my share. :/
The two of you can share my share between the two of you too. Or someone else can have it. Either way, I'm not sure I particularly want any of Ifreann's hot loving. It'll probably involve Ruffy in some way, and he already thinks I'm a girl. :S

As long as William Sledd or Angelicbiscuit/Ryan keep posting their vlogs there, I don't really care what happens to the rest of it.

The problem is the way intellectual property works in this country, it's very much "defend it or lose it". If you do not protect your intellectual property, and it enters public use, you may lose the right to future defend it.

Let's take the shoe company, Nike. They and only they have the right to call their shoes Nike. But imagine if some people started calling their shoes "nike". And nike did nothing to stop it. More and more, and Nike didn't do anything. And it went on for so long that everyone called their shoes "nike"

This happened for so long that eventually whenever someone refers to a shoe, any shoe, they call it a nike. Then Nike sues, trying to get everyone to stop them from violating their intellectual property. What happens? The courts say that since Nike didn't defend their intellectual property for so long, and let the term become common that they lost the right to it.

For instance, let us take the word "trampoline". You know what a trampoline is right? That thing you bounce on? You consider it just a generic term right?

Trampoline used not to just be a "thing", it was actually a brand name. "trampoline" wasn't just a thing like "shoe" it was the specific brand name of the specific company that made that product. You didn't have companies who made trampolines, you had companies who made these things you bounced on, and ONE company called their thing they bounced on "trampoline"

What happened? Well, they had the trademark on the word "trampoline" but other companies started calling it "trampoline" too. And the company that made their product and called it "trampoline" didn't do anything. In fact they didn't do anything for so long, and so many people began to think of "trampoline" not as the name of the brand, like "nike" but a simple generic product, like "shoe"

And the company that called their product "trampoline" lost the right to stop other companies from calling it trampoline. They lost the right to refer to THEIR product as a trampoline. The term became so pervasive that it simply turned to a generic idea. "this thing you bounce on" became a trampoline, regardless of who made it. And because the original company didn't do anything to stop it, they lost their right.

And they're not the only ones. Trampoline, Brazier, Escalator, Thermos, Yo-Yo, Aspirin, all of these were once actual, BRAND NAMES, just like Nike.

But the companies that made Brazier, Escalator, Thermos, yo-yo, asprin, didn't take efforts to protect their intellectual property. So they lost it.

It ALMOST happened with Kleenex and Xerox too.

So it's not easy to simply say "they're stupid this is helping them". If they let it go now, they may lose their right to stop it tomorrow. Maybe it's in their short term best interests to let it stand, but if they let companies get away with violating their intellectual property for too long, they may lose the rights to defend it later.

But.......but.......
And I don't want your butt either.

If it helps I know of a people who desperatly want hot loving charity.

*points it out*

that wont make a bent in how much Google has

I say we both dump our shares on I V and leg it to watch the results from a safe distance.
Mwaha! I now be the sole owner of Ifreann's hot lovin'! I can charge whatever I like for it!

I'd probably end up paying people to take it...

Telecoms are all like "omg the internets, get the silicon crosses! Hiss!"

This is not going as I had expected......Aww, widdle Iffy, don't be sad. :fluffle:

The problem is the way intellectual property works in this country, it's very much "defend it or lose it". If you do not protect your intellectual property, and it enters public use, you may lose the right to future defend it.

Let's take the shoe company, Nike. They and only they have the right to call their shoes Nike. But imagine if some people started calling their shoes "nike". And nike did nothing to stop it. More and more, and Nike didn't do anything. And it went on for so long that everyone called their shoes "nike"

This happened for so long that eventually whenever someone refers to a shoe, any shoe, they call it a nike. Then Nike sues, trying to get everyone to stop them from violating their intellectual property. What happens? The courts say that since Nike didn't defend their intellectual property for so long, and let the term become common that they lost the right to it.

For instance, let us take the word "trampoline". You know what a trampoline is right? That thing you bounce on? You consider it just a generic term right?

Trampoline used not to just be a "thing", it was actually a brand name. "trampoline" wasn't just a thing like "shoe" it was the specific brand name of the specific company that made that product. You didn't have companies who made trampolines, you had companies who made these things you bounced on, and ONE company called their thing they bounced on "trampoline"

What happened? Well, they had the trademark on the word "trampoline" but other companies started calling it "trampoline" too. And the company that made their product and called it "trampoline" didn't do anything. In fact they didn't do anything for so long, and so many people began to think of "trampoline" not as the name of the brand, like "nike" but a simple generic product, like "shoe"

And the company that called their product "trampoline" lost the right to stop other companies from calling it trampoline. They lost the right to refer to THEIR product as a trampoline. The term became so pervasive that it simply turned to a generic idea. "this thing you bounce on" became a trampoline, regardless of who made it. And because the original company didn't do anything to stop it, they lost their right.

And they're not the only ones. Trampoline, Brazier, Escalator, Thermos, Yo-Yo, Aspirin, all of these were once actual, BRAND NAMES, just like Nike.

But the companies that made Brazier, Escalator, Thermos, yo-yo, asprin, didn't take efforts to protect their intellectual property. So they lost it.

It ALMOST happened with Kleenex and Xerox too.

So it's not easy to simply say "they're stupid this is helping them". If they let it go now, they may lose their right to stop it tomorrow. Maybe it's in their short term best interests to let it stand, but if they let companies get away with violating their intellectual property for too long, they may lose the rights to defend it later.
Well... yes, but how does any of this fit the situation at hand?

And I don't want your butt either.

Mwaha! I now be the sole owner of Ifreann's hot lovin'! I can charge whatever I like for it!

I'd probably end up paying people to take it...

This is not going as I had expected......

This is not going as I had expected......
This begs the inevitable question - how did you expect it to go?

Hopefully, it will be! DIE youtube, DIE! I would celebrate! If Adobe and Youtube go Chapter 11, it would be even better, but you can't have everything...

Well... yes, but how does any of this fit the situation at hand?

Because Viacom is suing YouTube for violating their intellectual property. That's the point.

Viacom ownes the copyright on the daily show. By showing clips of the daily show without viacom's permission, YouTube violates Viacom's copyright. That's why they're being sued.

The idea is Viacom is aware of the violation. They may pursue it or not. If they chose not to pursue it, and continue to do this long enough, they may lose the right to pursue it later.

So companies vigorously defend their copyrights, even in situations where they may not be harmed, or in fact even helped by the violation. Because if they do not, they may not be able to later, when they really are being harmed.

This definitely builds image for Viacom. I mean, an evil image.

If it helps I know of a people who desperatly want hot loving charity.

*points it out*
I think it might help at this stage.
Aww, widdle Iffy, don't be sad. :fluffle:
:(
:fluffle:
This begs the inevitable question - how did you expect it to go?
Was a thread where people praise me and beg for my hot lovin too much to ask?

I think it might help at this stage.

:(
:fluffle:

Was a thread where people praise me and beg for my hot lovin too much to ask?

New evidence has turned up. As it turns out, the poster known as Ri-an has set up a False Charity for people who desperatly want Red-hot Loving in which "Ri-an" was the Sole Benifeciary.

Woohoo!

I dont know, I think its amazing that Viacom is suing google. I mean, if its one thing that is well known it is google, and if someone finds clips of something they can look at over and over again. Then All viacom has to do is come out with more new shit! I mean, its not like people are not watching their shows because they are also being watched on youtube, its because they all suck!!

I dont know. All they need is some smart TV on their shows, not some idiotic bullcrap thats poorly written and even more poorly displayed

Because Viacom is suing YouTube for violating their intellectual property. That's the point.

The idea is Viacom is aware of the violation. They may pursue it or not. If they chose not to pursue it, and continue to do this long enough, they may lose the right to pursue it later.

So companies vigorously defend their copyrights, even in situations where they may not be harmed, or in fact even helped by the violation. Because if they do not, they may not be able to later, when they really are being harmed.
Nope, sorry, still not seeing it.

The equivalent of your examples above would be YouTube styling themselves as an Online Comedy Site and offering Daily Show clips more or less as their own - actually, no, not even that is an equivalent because it's video clips from a TV show people know exists, so everybody will know it's not YouTube producing the thing.

YouTube never even pretends they are the makers of the content of their site - I mean, seeing how many private videos there are that would be silly anyway. So I don't see at all what there is to defend in terms of intellectual property.

I actually don't know if you have to pay extra to get Comedy Central on your TV (like HBO, for example) - if you do, then I could actually start to see Viacom's point, because then people could go watch it on Youtube instead of paying for seeing it on TV. However, even that's kinda lame because Viacom puts the clips up for free themselves on their ownsite.

And seriously - I'm not really one of the "Oooh, this is new, this is the thing of the future, let's all hail its goodness!" people but even I see that there can be no doubt that Youtube is basically "spreading the word" about shows/bands/artist/whatever and that more people will become familiar with the respective works and will be motivated to watch your channel, buy your CD, go see your movie.
I wouldn't say the same thing about illegaly downloading music off the internet, but for YouTube I definitely think that's true - if only because, I mean, look at the clips! The quality is shitty, you can't download them without going through some trouble, they're amateurish - they're appetizers at best.
They whet your appetite but you have to go to the actual buffet to eat.

That was a horrible simile/analogy/metaphor/whatever it was, it was bad. >.<

Your poll sucks.

Nope, sorry, still not seeing it.
Viacom produces shows. It makes money by both selling these shows to other networks and through selling advertising spots on their own network.

If the shows are available for free on Youtube, Viacom's ability to make money from selling shows/advertising spots is reduced.

Viacom may show clips, or even full shows, for free on their website. If people watch them on the Viacom site, then the traffic to the site goes up, and Viacom can sell advertising spots on their site for a higher price. Clearly, the videos being on Youtube doesn't help this.

I assume you understand all that anyway, that was just in case you don't. Here's the bit I think you don't understand.

The shows are Viacom's property. Youtube is infringing Viacom's copyright by hosting the shows on their site. Viacom is therefore well within their rights to ask Youtube to remove them - which I assume they have done - and if Youtube doesn't comply, Viacom is well within their rights to sue.

Viacom's problem is that, even if the shows being on Youtube increases traffic to the Viacom website, or increases viewing figures for episodes later in a series, there is still the potential for them to lose money in the future.

For example - Viacom produces "Show A". Show A, episodes 1-5 are broadcast on tv, then are put on Youtube. Subsequently, viewing figures for episodes 6-10 are up by 15% on episodes 1-5. Viacom can then sell advertising spots during episodes 11-15 for maybe 25% more than it had previously been selling them. Viacom is happy, because they're making money.

However, 5 years down the line, Viacom produces "Show B". Show B, episodes 1-5 are broadcast on tv, then put on Youtube. Subsequently, viewing figures for episodes 6-10 are down by 25% on episodes 1-5. Viacom can then only sell advertising spots during episodes 11-15 for maybe 50% less than it had previously been selling them. Viacom is unhappy.

Viacom's problem in that scenario is that it would have weakened its case against the copyright infringement for "Show B" because it had done nothing when its copyright on "Show A" was infringed. "But it was making us money" is not a good argument if you're trying to sue somebody.

Your poll sucks.

You're just jealous because so many people want my hot loving.

Viacom produces shows. It makes money by both selling these shows to other networks and through selling advertising spots on their own network.

If the shows are available for free on Youtube, Viacom's ability to make money from selling shows/advertising spots is reduced.

Viacom may show clips, or even full shows, for free on their website. If people watch them on the Viacom site, then the traffic to the site goes up, and Viacom can sell advertising spots on their site for a higher price. Clearly, the videos being on Youtube doesn't help this.

I assume you understand all that anyway, that was just in case you don't. Here's the bit I think you don't understand.

The shows are Viacom's property. Youtube is infringing Viacom's copyright by hosting the shows on their site. Viacom is therefore well within their rights to ask Youtube to remove them - which I assume they have done - and if Youtube doesn't comply, Viacom is well within their rights to sue.

Viacom's problem is that, even if the shows being on Youtube increases traffic to the Viacom website, or increases viewing figures for episodes later in a series, there is still the potential for them to lose money in the future.

For example - Viacom produces "Show A". Show A, episodes 1-5 are broadcast on tv, then are put on Youtube. Subsequently, viewing figures for episodes 6-10 are up by 15% on episodes 1-5. Viacom can then sell advertising spots during episodes 11-15 for maybe 25% more than it had previously been selling them. Viacom is happy, because they're making money.
First: thanks for going to the effort of trying to get this through my thick skull. :p

Then: I understand everything perfectly up this point.


Here's where I fail, yet again:

However, 5 years down the line, Viacom produces "Show B". Show B, episodes 1-5 are broadcast on tv, then put on Youtube. Subsequently, viewing figures for episodes 6-10 are down by 25% on episodes 1-5. Viacom can then only sell advertising spots during episodes 11-15 for maybe 50% less than it had previously been selling them. Viacom is unhappy.

Viacom's problem in that scenario is that it would have weakened its case against the copyright infringement for "Show B" because it had done nothing when its copyright on "Show A" was infringed. "But it was making us money" is not a good argument if you're trying to sue somebody.When I read the last paragraph it certainly sounds reasonable.

But then I start thinking about it and again can't come up with anything copyright-related that might happen to Viacom because of Youtube - and I think the example you've given in the second to last paragraph has a logical error in it.

Even if the show sucks badly and the first five episodes are aired and are then put on Youtube, if viewing figures for episodes 6-10 go down it would NOT be because of Youtube. Because of course for viewing figures to go down, viewers that watched eps 1-5 will have to drop away.
The people who go on Youtube and see the clips and realize the show sucks, however, have never been viewers of the show in the first place, hence they cannot be the ones causing the drop in viewing figures.

Make sense?

You're just jealous because so many people want my hot loving.
But can you satisfy everyone?

Viacom to sue YouTube for $1billion

Maybe this is why Colbert was doing a number on Viacom overlord Sumner Redstone. :D

http://defamer.com/hollywood/short-ends/short-ends-colbert-vs-the-viacom-cryptkeeper-242490.php

I love it when Colbert does the :upyours::cool: :upyours: :cool: :upyours: :cool: on his boss/overlord.
and the picture he picked.. Redstone really look like a creepy mummy.

First: thanks for going to the effort of trying to get this through my thick skull. :p
No problem. :)

When I read the last paragraph it certainly sounds reasonable.

But then I start thinking about it and again can't come up with anything copyright-related that might happen to Viacom because of Youtube - and I think the example you've given in the second to last paragraph has a logical error in it.

Even if the show sucks badly and the first five episodes are aired and are then put on Youtube, if viewing figures for episodes 6-10 go down it would NOT be because of Youtube. Because of course for viewing figures to go down, viewers that watched eps 1-5 will have to drop away.
The people who go on Youtube and see the clips and realize the show sucks, however, have never been viewers of the show in the first place, hence they cannot be the ones causing the drop in viewing figures.

Make sense?
Ok, I missed a bit out. My fault.

The actual problem is that while, say, 10 million people will have watched episodes 1-5 on tv, and 2 million watched them on Youtube, episodes 6-10 will be watched by, say, 7 million on tv, and 5 million on Youtube, because 3 million people will have realised they can watch the show firstly whenever the hell they want, and secondly without the sodding ad breaks every ten minutes. I really hope that does make sense, because I'm going to bed soon.

Fucking Viacom.

Fucking copyright laws in general! They take away my 1960s vintage homemade concert films... from fucking Sweden!

Hopefully, it will be! DIE youtube, DIE! I would celebrate! If Adobe and Youtube go Chapter 11, it would be even better, but you can't have everything...

Being a man that loves PhotoShop and DaxFlame, I hate you.

DIE! :gundge:

But can you satisfy everyone?

There's only one way to find out.

But can you satisfy everyone?

There's only one way to find out.

I'm certainly satisfied.

How can Viacom sue Youtube? Youtube already takes down all the Viacom videos when they find out they have been uploaded. A lot of my favorite videos have been taken down due to"Viacom copyright infringement". If Viacom wants Youtube to take the videos down faster they better design a program that removes their material as soon as it is downloaded on youtube.

I love it when Colbert does the :upyours::cool: :upyours: :cool: :upyours: :cool: on his boss/ Viacom overlord.
And the follow-up was awesome too..
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83360

specially the cryptkeeper picture with the semi-naked girls.. :D

Ok, I missed a bit out. My fault.

The actual problem is that while, say, 10 million people will have watched episodes 1-5 on tv, and 2 million watched them on Youtube, episodes 6-10 will be watched by, say, 7 million on tv, and 5 million on Youtube, because 3 million people will have realised they can watch the show firstly whenever the hell they want, and secondly without the sodding ad breaks every ten minutes.
Weeeeellll..... I see what you're saying but I don't see it happening. :p

For one, of how many shows are there actually the whole episodes uploaded on Youtube in the first place?

For another, who would even want to sit through a whole episode on Youtube considering their usual picture quality?

For a third (can you even say that?) if a show sucks so much that it loses its viewers I *highly* doubt those viewers will sit themselves in front of the computer to watch it nevertheless. I don't know about you, but I'd be far more likely to stop and watch a bit of a crappy show when I happen across it when flipping channels instead of actively seeking out episodes or even clips of the thing on Youtube.

I really hope that does make sense, because I'm going to bed soon.Totally made sense. <.< :D Goodnight!

the point. wytyg, is that viacom has one product, tv shows.

for it to be valuable to them, they need to control it. it has to be up to THEM where it will be seen and it what form. if they dont vigorously defend that, it can pass out of their control and out of their revenue stream

thats the way copyright law works. this is also why its illegal to take your disney little mermaid dvd to preschool to show the kids.

sure this you tube thing is a benefit for viacom NOW. there are clips from their shows on there that i had never seen and made me pay more attention when those shows were on my tv.

BUT if it suddenly becomes OK to have little clips of bits from the daily show on youtube, isnt it also OK for me to have it on MY webpage?

and in 10 years from now, wont it be OK for it to be encoded into my new video tshirt? and at THAT time wont the precedent be set that they dont care about the after use of their product and all those daily show clips will be on everyone's chest for free?

the point. wytyg, is that viacom has one product, tv shows.

for it to be valuable to them, they need to control it. it has to be up to THEM where it will be seen and it what form. if they dont vigorously defend that, it can pass out of their control and out of their revenue stream

thats the way copyright law works. this is also why its illegal to take your disney little mermaid dvd to preschool to show the kids.

sure this you tube thing is a benefit for viacom NOW. there are clips from their shows on there that i had never seen and made me pay more attention when those shows were on my tv.

BUT if it suddenly becomes OK to have little clips of bits from the daily show on youtube, isnt it also OK for me to have it on MY webpage?

and in 10 years from now, wont it be OK for it to be encoded into my new video tshirt? and at THAT time wont the precedent be set that they dont care about the after use of their product and all those daily show clips will be on everyone's chest for free?
You threw me there for a bit with your funky shirt but I actually see your point. Yay. ;p

I'm still tempted to say "Well, so what if it's on your webpage? It's still free PR for Viacom!" but that whole T-Shirt thing goes deep into merchandise territory, so yeah, I could definitely see that they wouldn't want everyone to be able to make their own Daily Show merchandise, so to speak.

On the other hand (sorry :p) there are already all kinds of specific laws (copyright infringement among them) that make it illegal for me to print the Daily Show logo on mousepads and sell them. What we're talking about here, however, isn't a logo or a Disney character but a show as such.

But yeah, I guess you're right. After all, in every book it says that it's illegal to copy & distribute the whole book or parts of the book, same for movies.

I grudgingly give up. *stubborn*

You threw me there for a bit with your funky shirt but I actually see your point. Yay. ;p

I'm still tempted to say "Well, so what if it's on your webpage? It's still free PR for Viacom!" but that whole T-Shirt thing goes deep into merchandise territory, so yeah, I could definitely see that they wouldn't want everyone to be able to make their own Daily Show merchandise, so to speak.

On the other hand (sorry :p) there are already all kinds of specific laws (copyright infringement among them) that make it illegal for me to print the Daily Show logo on mousepads and sell them. What we're talking about here, however, isn't a logo or a Disney character but a show as such.

But yeah, I guess you're right. After all, in every book it says that it's illegal to copy & distribute the whole book or parts of the book, same for movies.

I grudgingly give up. *stubborn*

i think you should start working on that tshirt idea. it could make you rich.

yeah it sucks when things we wish would be legal just arent. i hate that part. but thats why we need laws and courts. what seems right to us quite often turns out to be wishful thinking.

*sigh*

It's things like this that makes me want to become a trillionaire by combining all these things into a giant conglomerate.

There are a couple of odd twists to this, though:
1. YouTube basically provides a software service. Their control over the content that is posted to their website is limited. It exists, but it is limited. The copyright violations are the direct result of the users posting copyrighted material on the site and the most that YouTube can be held responsible for is negligence for not preventing the posting of copyrighted material.
2. It isn't illegal to bring your movies to school and show them to the kiddies. You're just not allowed to charge them money for it. The same principle theoretically applies to YouTube; since they don't charge money to show material that has, one way or another, found its way into the public domain, they can't be held directly liable for profiteering. It is only illegal (to that extent, at least) to generate income off of material that is not theirs. This, in turn, becomes even more complex when you consider that the revenue for the material comes not from direct charge but through advertising exposure.

I reckon it's just a show for the public. The real reason for this ridiculously large lawsuit is probably more about forcing a better deal out of YouTube/Google.

It's silly Viacom squealing about Daily Show and the like. The thing is - it's not called the DAILY show for nothing. It's current affairs stuff, so not many ppl are going to be interested in purchasing dvds of past shows. Thus lost revenue is minimal, if not non-existant. They'd have a hard time proving any lost revenue imo.
Youtube quality is so crappy, I seriously doubt anyone who has access to Viacom product on TV would eschew TV in favour of Youtube. I watch TDS on Youtube (or download via a bit site) simply cause I can't get it here.


BBC has accepted YouTube and come to an agreement with Google. Now most of the stuff from the beeb is from Auntie herself:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BBCWorldwide

If even a doddering old institution like the beeb can see the rationale behind letting everyone see their stuff for free on Youtube, I bet Viacom can as well.
They're just pushing for a better deal from Google, that's all.

Yes, The Daily Show - Global Edition, which is all you can get in HK, sucks eggs

There are a couple of odd twists to this, though:
1. YouTube basically provides a software service. Their control over the content that is posted to their website is limited. It exists, but it is limited. The copyright violations are the direct result of the users posting copyrighted material on the site and the most that YouTube can be held responsible for is negligence for not preventing the posting of copyrighted material.
2. It isn't illegal to bring your movies to school and show them to the kiddies. You're just not allowed to charge them money for it. The same principle theoretically applies to YouTube; since they don't charge money to show material that has, one way or another, found its way into the public domain, they can't be held directly liable for profiteering. It is only illegal (to that extent, at least) to generate income off of material that is not theirs. This, in turn, becomes even more complex when you consider that the revenue for the material comes not from direct charge but through advertising exposure.You make a fatal mistake. In the UK at least, copyrighted material may be shown to others free of charge, but it must be to a private audience. ie. not open to the public. A school is not open to the public and only the class will see the film. However youtube is open to everyone. and thus it that way breaches copyright law.

edit: just popped a DVD into my machine. It says you can't even show it at a school.

For one, of how many shows are there actually the whole episodes uploaded on Youtube in the first place?

For another, who would even want to sit through a whole episode on Youtube considering their usual picture quality?
These are both irrelevant. The point is that they're up there in the first place. If only one person watches them, Viacom still has a case for Youtube infringing its copyright.


For a third (can you even say that?) if a show sucks so much that it loses its viewers I *highly* doubt those viewers will sit themselves in front of the computer to watch it nevertheless. I don't know about you, but I'd be far more likely to stop and watch a bit of a crappy show when I happen across it when flipping channels instead of actively seeking out episodes or even clips of the thing on Youtube.
It won't necessarily lose viewers. In my example, there were still 12 million people watching, just 3 million of them had decided they'd prefer to watch on Youtube rather than tv. That's the point - people like the show, but not the adverts, so they watch it without the adverts (and at their own convenience).

Totally made sense. <.< :D Goodnight!
Good. :p

So google paid $1.5 billion for a $1 billion dollar lawsuit. Genius.

Also, some people here seem confused as to the difference between trademark and copyright.

For one, of how many shows are there actually the whole episodes uploaded on Youtube in the first place?


Of the Daily Show? Probably none. It's a pain in the ass to watch anything longer than ten minutes on Youtube.

google is at least semi-useful some of the time. viacom is totaly useless to me for anything. they seem to think they have some sort of devine right to own the world, whether they actualy created it or not.

while there may be some legal precident for what viacom is trying to do.
my personal preference, while google has its shortcommings too, is that
viacom crawl up its own tailpipe and expire.

=^^=
.../\...