Chilly Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 step 1) they turn a blind eye to copyrighted content that they could easily remove or filter. How do you propose they easily filter or remove this? Filtering isn't easy, and YouTube gets a TON of traffic. step 2) they create a huge user base, largely on the backs of unauthorized content paid for by other peopleUploaded by other people, too. setp 3) they try to bully media companies into signing deals with them, using the "there is no other game in town" angle. I guess thats why Viacom went with competitor Joost.com to sign a deal with, eh? Viacom didn't demand that the videos be removed until negotiations with Google fell through and they went with a competitor. Google has done a damn good job of making sure Viacom's content is removed as well. I wanted to watch the new South Park episode again the next day, after it aired last week, and it came up on YouTube about 10 times. Every single one of those had already been removed by Google when I went to watch it.
The Dean Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 BlueFire makes excellent points. Let just add another log or two: I don't think filtering is an option. A filter would not know who has and who doesn't have rights (full or fair use) to the material. A filter may be able to sniff-out porn and language ("sniff-out porn"...that's funny), but it can't know what contractual rights an uploader of content may or may not have. In Google's zeal to purge YouTube of Viacom's copyrighted material, it managed to remove material that was NOT copyrighted by Viacom and content the uploaders had every right to upload. There are serious concerns about censorship and first amendment violations (mostly bogus, I think...but, still) if YouTube persists with it's draconian policy purging policy. I had similar issues with South Park (and Simpsons) unavailability. Right now, grouper.com and vidilife.com seem to have some full episodes. (As of yesterday, last week's episode was still there.) Feel free to flail away... EDIT: Oops..sorry. Forgot to add, once more, Viacom's suit against YouTube REALLY isn't about copyright violation. That's just the hook.
gmac17 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Viacom didn't demand that the videos be removed until negotiations with Google fell through although it sounds good, that will mean nothing in court. Google still made money off of placing ads around copyrighted content they were fully aware existed. Google has done a damn good job of making sure Viacom's content is removed as well. EXACTLY!!! But why is it on the content owner to constantly police all of these sites when Google obviously has the technology or manpower to do so. Google time and time again has a policy of f'ing over content owners first and then saying "but you can opt out of our site if you want" - just tell us when your stuff gets posted. Why not give copyright owners a "key code" that will allow them to officially upload content. Then put a "copyrighted content" link on the video player just like the inappropriate link - if someone flags the copyrighted link but it was officially uploaded then it stays up. If it wasn't put up by the company, it gets reviewed and possibly taken down. I just solved the problem in 2 minutes on a bills message board. I guess thats why Viacom went with competitor Joost.com to sign a deal with, eh?Yes - google tried to drive a sh*tty deal thinking these guys had to do a deal with them because they were it. Now Google is probably getting a little nervous because the viacom suit pretty much means that the other media companies will sit on the sidelines for a bit, or possibly even file a suit of their own. In Google's zeal to purge YouTube of Viacom's copyrighted material, it managed to remove material that was NOT copyrighted by Viacom and content the uploaders had every right to upload. There are serious concerns about censorship and first amendment violations (mostly bogus, I think...but, still) if YouTube persists with it's draconian policy purging policy. come on Dean - those are horrible arguments. Who cares if a random video or two get deleted - it's not your first amendment right that mistakes don't get made on YouTube. Mistakes happen at every company. And to call a policy of copyright protection "draconian" is a bit much... The funniest part of my hatred for google is that I own google stock, I get checks from Google every month for some sites I run, and I spend over $500,000 per year on advertising with them at work each year....
Chilly Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 although it sounds good, that will mean nothing in court. Google still made money off of placing ads around copyrighted content they were fully aware existed. You're right, it won't mean anything in court. Of course, the DMCA says that Google is fine. I would assume Google could be liable in older, non-digital copyright laws, but we'll see. Ad revenue certainly complicates things. EXACTLY!!! But why is it on the content owner to constantly police all of these sites when Google obviously has the technology or manpower to do so. lol. So, Google can find 10 clips of Viacom's copywrited material and this means they have the manpower to police ALL of YouTube? Dude, these were clips that were named EXACTLY what they were and thus extremely easy to find. You aren't getting a BIG part of this. There is absolutely NO EASY WAY for Google to police YouTube. Google time and time again has a policy of f'ing over content owners first and then saying "but you can opt out of our site if you want" - just tell us when your stuff gets posted. Why not give copyright owners a "key code" that will allow them to officially upload content. Then put a "copyrighted content" link on the video player just like the inappropriate link - if someone flags the copyrighted link but it was officially uploaded then it stays up. If it wasn't put up by the company, it gets reviewed and possibly taken down. I just solved the problem in 2 minutes on a bills message board. lol, you didn't solve sh--. Do you really think the people who are interested in this content and want to see this content are going to police it to be removed? The people who use YouTube don't want the content removed, the MEDIA companies do. Yes - google tried to drive a sh*tty deal thinking these guys had to do a deal with them because they were it. Now Google is probably getting a little nervous because the viacom suit pretty much means that the other media companies will sit on the sidelines for a bit, or possibly even file a suit of their own. How the !@#$ do you know its a sh------- deal? Because Viacom claimed it was? There are also PLENTY of alternatives to GooTube. The funniest part of my hatred for google is that I own google stock, I get checks from Google every month for some sites I run, and I spend over $500,000 per year on advertising with them at work each year.... Ah, blind hate for Google, gotta love it.
gmac17 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Of course, the DMCA says that Google is fine.you mean some random blogger on business 2.0 says the DCMA says they are fine. How is Napster doing these days? There is absolutely NO EASY WAY for Google to police YouTube. Then why can't I find a nipple on Youtube? Because people report it. Although most people wouldn't report copyright infringement, enough would that they could make it easily work. They are google for Chrissakes - you don't think they could figure out a way to do this? Ah, blind hate for Google, gotta love it. It's not blind at all - they provide great services, but they are full of sh*t with their "do no evil" crap. Censorship in china, ripping off publishers, click fraud - the list goes on.
Chilly Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 you mean some random blogger on business 2.0 says the DCMA says they are fine. How is Napster doing these days? Its interesting that you bring up Napster. It was in that case in which the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff had to notify Napster of potential copyright infringement on their system before Napster had a duty to remove the material. In addition, YouTube has substantial non-infringing use, something that Napster could not prove. Then why can't I find a nipple on Youtube? Because people report it. Although most people wouldn't report copyright infringement, enough would that they could make it easily work. They are google for Chrissakes - you don't think they could figure out a way to do this? Speculation. Google has licensed the AudibleMagic filtering technology (which is the one that MySpace is using). We'll see about implementation on a scale as large as YouTube. Implementing something like that on a site with over 35 million videos, and 35,000 new videos a day, is pretty damned complicated. This isn't something that happens overnight. It's not blind at all - they provide great services, but they are full of sh*t with their "do no evil" crap. Censorship in china, ripping off publishers, click fraud - the list goes on. Google isn't perfect, but they are in the right in this instance.
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 The flame is a little low (I like a BIG glow on my fire) so I'll toss in a small, quick burning log: While I don't necessarily agree that Google is "right" in this dispute, it is quite cleat that BlueFire is kicking the crap out of gmac17 in this dispute. BlueFire has a far better understanding of the complexities (and the facts) involved in the issue. BTW, gmac, you are right about one thing. Google's "Do no evil" tagline has become strictly marketing, IMO. They are waist deep in evil these days and the $$$ pouring in has distorted their mission...again, IMO. But Viacom has wallowed in the slime for many years. Their general business practices are among the worst I have ever encountered.
Sketch Soland Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 What is wrong with that? They seem to be following the rules? Like the article said, not really sure if it is true, they are complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Alexander Macgillivray, associate general counsel for products and intellectual property at Google, said YouTube was protected under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which gives online service providers protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material. I guess the lawsuit will determine how they interpret that the act... This is the whole kit and kaboodle right here. Whether or not the Digital Millennium Copyright Act applies to this lawsuit (which it obviously does because it's whole purpose was to anticipate exactly this kind of problem) and whether Google/Youtube is complying with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to its best capability. To a complete laymen it seems like they are. They take down Viacom clips as they receive requests from the company (like Daily Show and Colbert clips), they've struck deals with NBC and CBS to allow certain clips. Viacom is living in the past and has its head up its arse, especially when lots of their shows get huge publicity and PR from youtube! Viacom is just holding Youtube's feet to the fire in the public arena. It will be settled out of court, most likely, imo.
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 This is the whole kit and kaboodle right here. Whether or not the Digital Millennium Copyright Act applies to this lawsuit (which it obviously does because it's whole purpose was to anticipate exactly this kind of problem) and whether Google/Youtube is complying with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to its best capability. To a complete laymen it seems like they are. They take down Viacom clips as they receive requests from the company (like Daily Show and Colbert clips), they've struck deals with NBC and CBS to allow certain clips. Viacom is living in the past and has its head up its arse, especially when lots of their shows get huge publicity and PR from youtube! Viacom is just holding Youtube's feet to the fire in the public arena. It will be settled out of court, most likely, imo. Well done, Mr Vonnegut. Of course this is the crux of the biscuit. There are, most likely, other biz-related issues involved, as well. And, yes, this will almost certainly be settled out of court. BUT, that kind of post tosses water on the fire and makes it smoke and smell.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Obviously this will get settled out of court.
Beerball Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Well done, Mr Vonnegut. Of course this is the crux of the biscuit. There are, most likely, other biz-related issues involved, as well. And, yes, this will almost certainly be settled out of court. BUT, that kind of post tosses water on the fire and makes it smoke and smell. I thought you said you would toss an occasional log?
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I thought you said you would toss an occasional log? Eye of the beholder, and all that. As I said, I like a big flame on my fire.
Sketch Soland Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I thought you said you would toss an occasional log? Dude, It's log... It's log... It's big... It's heavy... It's wood.... It's log..... It's log.... It's BETTER than BAD.... It's GOOD! Ok?
Beerball Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Eye of the beholder, and all that. As I said, I like a big flame on my fire.
gmac17 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 While I don't necessarily agree that Google is "right" in this dispute, it is quite cleat that BlueFire is kicking the crap out of gmac17 in this dispute. BlueFire has a far better understanding of the complexities (and the facts) involved in the issue. I won't fall for that one Dean. And I definitely won't say that I probably have a better understanding of the industry than anybody else here, or that I have personally dealt with the DMCA on a number of levels for companies that I started, or that I have content on YouTube with over a million views that will be featured on a crappy cable tv show in the not too distant future ($1,000 baby!).
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Dude, It's log... It's log... It's big... It's heavy... It's wood.... It's log..... It's log.... It's BETTER than BAD.... It's GOOD! Ok? Nice Ren & Stimpy reference.
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I won't fall for that one Dean. And I definitely won't say that I probably have a better understanding of the industry than anybody else here, or that I have personally dealt with the DMCA on a number of levels for companies that I started, or that I have content on YouTube with over a million views that will be featured on a crappy cable tv show in the not too distant future ($1,000 baby!). This really isn't about who's is bigger, gmac. Just know that several of your fellow Wallers are/have been in highly placed positions in media for many, many years. You should also understand being involved in an industry doesn't always give one insight into some of the really important areas of that industry. You might be surprised how little most high level television execs understand when it comes to the Nielsen ratings...the currency of the industry. You'd think (at least I would) a CEO or GM would want to know as much as possible about that which is so influential on how much $ the company makes. Most, I find, have at best a cursory understanding of the process. Also, posting a bunch of vids on YouTube hardly qualifies as having any experience with regards to this issue. You might as well have replaced, "I have content on YouTube with over a million views that will be featured on a crappy cable tv show in the not too distant future ($1,000 baby!)" with "My uncle has a red pencil box" for what it brings to this discussion. My judgment stands! In the discussion so far, BlueFire has demonstrated a far better handle on the issue. Perhaps you are holding back or just haven't taken the time to communicate your knowledge properly as you are so busy starting companies. But, in order to get the decision reversed, you need to step up your game! Anyone see the bellows around?
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Nice Ren & Stimpy reference. I was pounding my head trying to figure out where that was from. Thanks.
gmac17 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Dean - I'm sure (in fact I know) that there are plenty of bigger fish here than me - but this issue is right in my wheelhouse. I have experience with this issue on all sides (and my youtube reference was simply to point out that youtube has been good for me personally, despite my issues with them). Evidently I need to take a class at winning message board arguments..... at the end of the day I don't think they will settle out of court, viacom won't get a billion dollars and the DMCA will most certainly get a major facelift to bring it up to speed with the times....
The Dean Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Dean - I'm sure (in fact I know) that there are plenty of bigger fish here than me - but this issue is right in my wheelhouse. I have experience with this issue on all sides (and my youtube reference was simply to point out that youtube has been good for me personally, despite my issues with them). Evidently I need to take a class at winning message board arguments..... at the end of the day I don't think they will settle out of court, viacom won't get a billion dollars and the DMCA will most certainly get a major facelift to bring it up to speed with the times.... We certainly agree on that one thing. How do you come to that conclusion given you think Viacom is in the right and Google is the violator?
Recommended Posts