Topic: Watch or copy your favorite videos off you tube now (Read 7163 times)

Electric Eye · « **on:** March 13, 2007, 11:10:40 pm »

It's fixing to go bye-bye, viacom has filed a 1 billion dollar lawsuit of Google gaggle's recent purchase of You Tube for 1.5 billion dollars.

I expect tracking software to come next.

Yes, I'm watching it 24/7 like MTV was back in the day, and more videos and stuff are going BYE-BYE.

Jack

Commander Maxillius · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:18:30 pm »

greedy bastards.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:50:26 pm »

It's funny they waited until AFTER Google agreed to buy them out for 1.5 billion, then turn around with a 1 billion lawsuit, eh?

I'm no fan of google, but that reeks of greed.

If anything those free videos made me WANT to go buy more retro CDs, and where else can you see Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla for free?

I'll pay 5 bucks for a DVD of it.

I'm sure Don Henley is having a fit!

Electric Eye · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:53:31 pm »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:King_Ceasar.jpg

Chuut, you looked so adorable when you were young!

Electric Eye · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2007, 07:56:23 pm »

Interpol in Japan rocks! They always save the day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUOTi58RvYE

We also see Chuut always has a case of the arse when he wakes up!

Alphageek · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2007, 06:01:50 am »

I knew this had to happen sooner or later. Frankly, I'm surprised the BBC isn't suing them as well.

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:15:55 am »

It's about time.

If they'd kept it to user created content (home movies and such) I wouldn't care, but they went way outta bounds when they started posting entire episodes of old shows and movies.

Good for Viacom, I hope they win the lawsuit- maybe others will follow suit and sue them as well.

Commander Maxillius · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am »

TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2007, 12:37:36 pm »

Quote from: Commander Maxillius on March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am

TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

If you wanted to watch it again and again, you shoulda taped it when it was first broadcast. Same goes with music, if you wanted it on CD you shoulda recorded it when they played it on the radio.

GE-Raven · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2007, 01:02:48 pm »

Quote from: Commander Maxillius on March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am

TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

Not quite... those stations pay for it... Commercials are used to cover the cost. However the "commercials" that playing now at the side of the web page are paying the owners of YouTube (google) but yet Google isn't paying ANYONE for content. If you want the content you are free and able to contact the rightful owner of that content and attempt to license its use. More over you might be able to buy that content in DVD or VHS format... FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE.

However If I tape all the family guy episodes and then start my own "broadcast tv" station that plays those episodes, and I make money by people buying advert space on my "broadcast tv" station. I am breaking the law... The original broadcaster has to pay the owner and distributor (as well as the makers indirectly), I am not allowed to steal it, rebroadcast it, AND make money while I do so.

That is in effect what YouTube is doing. If there was zero advertisement on the page and no one made a dime on it... you might have a shot at slipping it by someone... however that is not the case.

GE-Raven

Electric Eye · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2007, 04:32:44 pm »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Tube

Though YouTube had done its part to comply with NBC's demands, the incident made the news, giving YouTube its most prominent publicity yet. As the site continued to grow, NBC began to realize the possibilities, and in June 2006 made an unusual move. The network had reconsidered its actions and was announcing a strategic partnership with YouTube. Under the terms of the partnership, an official NBC channel was set up on YouTube, showcasing promotional clips for the series The Office. YouTube will also promote NBC's videos throughout its site.[19]

CBS, which had previously also asked YouTube to remove several of its clips, followed suit in July 2006. In a statement indicative of how the traditional media industry's perception of YouTube (and similar sites) has changed, Sean McManus, president of CBS News and Sports noted:

“ Our inclination now is, the more exposure we get from clips like that, the better it is for CBS News and the CBS television network, so in retrospect we probably should have embraced the exposure, and embraced the attention it was bringing CBS, instead of being parochial and saying ‘let’s pull it down.’[20]

This could be huge, CBS AND NBC are just as big if not bigger in the balls sector than Viacom.

On October 9, CBS, along with Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, also agreed to provide content to YouTube.[23]

On January 29, 2007, the co-founder of YouTube, Chad Hurley, announced that the on-line video service will pay its active users, who should also be true copyright owners, a part of the website's revenue gained from advertising. However, at the World Economic Forum, Mr. Hurley did not mention a concrete amount of money that YouTube will pay its contributors.[24]

Sony BMG??? Uhhhmmmm, Viacom, you are definitely outflanked there!

On February 2, 2007, Viacom demanded YouTube to take down more than 100,000 videos, all of which are held by MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.[36]

MTV (Has-been), Comedy Central (Old folks watch it), and Nickelodeon (Kids used to watch it but now have better things on TV and their P/C.).

My guess is Viacom is gonna come out on the losing side as Sony BMG and CBS and others come in with the cash and assistance like they did with Napster. Also consider the content of You tube, 100,000 videos is a drop in the bucket compared to their content. Look at MTV Overdrive, it's essentially the same as last year content wise. What a dudround call that was.

IMHO, good luck Viacom... NOT!

GE-Raven · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2007, 07:52:41 am »

I wonder if those deals involved commercial time/funds...

Hmmm anyone want to bet?

Media companies don't take a dump unless there is commercial support for it!

GE-Raven

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2007, 09:38:53 am »

Quote from: Electric Eye on March 15, 2007, 04:32:44 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Tube

On February 2, 2007, Viacom demanded YouTube to take down more than 100,000 videos, all of which are held by MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.[36]

MTV (Has-been), Comedy Central (Old folks watch it), and Nickelodeon (Kids used to watch it but now have better things on TV and their P/C.).

These key lines say it all. MTV, Comedy Central, Nick are all cable channels (which subscribers pay for), so to view these channels content for free via You_Tube IS copyright infringement. You_Tube isn't paying for this content and is letting anyone with internet access view this stuff (for free) as the internet service providers arent paying Viacom either.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2007, 03:47:29 pm »

Yet Viacom would be shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO, for the short term. Why? Ever since SBC and Time Warner and Comcast and others have been paying big lobbying money for TV over internet, it has gained momentum.

So you say it will never happen? Just a few years ago cable companies would not touch DishNetwork or Direct TV, now they are pretty much partners in the same bed, AND for a less expensive price than for DSL or Cable lines alone, much less the cost of a regular Dish setup.

I can remember when Dish with a few extras cost almost 100 bucks, now SBC (Or in the case, cable with time Warner) will handle your DSL or cable modem , a DSL or cable phone line too, AND a sat dish with a lot of programs for under 100 bucks a month.

Napster did not stand a chance due to everyone being left in the dirt (The guy was a teenage genius) with the technology and the inventiveness at the time, now they are more intelligent and will pursue whatever edge they can get, even a media outlet such as YouTube.

IMHO.

Iceman · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2007, 10:50:25 am »

Quote from: KBF K MalaK on March 15, 2007, 12:37:36 pm

Quote from: Commander Maxillius on March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am
TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

If you wanted to watch it again and again, you shoulda taped it when it was first broadcast. Same goes with music, if you wanted it on CD you shoulda recorded it when they played it on the radio.

....which is also illegal.

The system is flawed. It needs to be fixed.

Viacom probably won't get anything. That's just my opinion.

Lieutenant_Q · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:45:27 pm »

Good luck with that one. The MPAA and the RIAA can throw more money at Congress than sane people can. It won't be fixed. Not without a wave of Senators and Representatives that actually care for the good of the people rather than all the money they can make on Capitol Hill.

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2007, 06:41:03 pm »

Quote from: Iceman on March 20, 2007, 10:50:25 am

Quote from: KBF K MalaK on March 15, 2007, 12:37:36 pm
Quote from: Commander Maxillius on March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am
TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

If you wanted to watch it again and again, you shoulda taped it when it was first broadcast. Same goes with music, if you wanted it on CD you shoulda recorded it when they played it on the radio.

....which is also illegal.

The system is flawed. It needs to be fixed.

Viacom probably won't get anything. That's just my opinion.

Why is it illegal ?? If you really believe that, then recording devices as a whole should be illegal.

I remember a few years ago I purchased snow white, cinderella, lady and the tramp on VHS because they we're supposed to be the last time they were going to be offered (according to Disney), then 2 years later they were all offered again on DVD.

THAT should be illegal, but Disney assumes I won't persue a class action lawsuit against them.

The_Joker · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2007, 07:09:27 pm »

It WAS the last time they were offered..........on VHS. That was also the way it was worded, if I remember correctly.

And, yes, technically, it is illegal to record some televised events...sporting events come immediately to mind.

GE-Raven · « **Reply #18 on:** March 21, 2007, 08:09:38 am »

Quote from: Iceman on March 20, 2007, 10:50:25 am

Quote from: KBF K MalaK on March 15, 2007, 12:37:36 pm
Quote from: Commander Maxillius on March 15, 2007, 09:54:53 am
TV content should be free. If they wanted to charge for it, they should'nt've BROADCAST IT ON THE FRIGGIN OPEN AIR WAVES in the first place.

If you wanted to watch it again and again, you shoulda taped it when it was first broadcast. Same goes with music, if you wanted it on CD you shoulda recorded it when they played it on the radio.

....which is also illegal.

The system is flawed. It needs to be fixed.

Viacom probably won't get anything. That's just my opinion.

No it isn't... sorry but if people are just gonna regurgitate what they "THINK" is true, then why even discuss it. That is the biggest problem with Copyright law, most people never bother to actually know what is legal and not.

Recording ANYTHING for private use from a public source is pretty much always legal. Watching it is legal, it is when you go to MAKE MONEY from that material there is a problem.

That is the problem with YouTube. People are making money from copyrighted material they didn't purchase the rights to.

If I go to a book reading I am allowed to hand copy every word spoken, if I so desire. However I am not allowed to then go outside the store, photocopy my hand copied version and sell it for 1/4 the price of the original book. Nor am I allowed to give it away free, if I am paid by advertisers to have the first 3 pages of that pirated book laced with ads.

That, in effect, is what You Tube does.

GE-Raven.

TheJudge · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:02:07 pm »

Sweet Mary Mother of God, Raven and I are agreeing so much it's like we've joined...er um, never mind, but he's right.

Sarek · « **Reply #20 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:50:23 am »

I'd say that You Tube is more like the store which provides the photocopy machine used to make the copies. They don't directly profit from the videos since the ads aren't on the same page, and they don't know what is being posted. The question is whether or not they should know.

GE-Raven · « **Reply #21 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:39:03 am »

Quote from: Sarek on March 22, 2007, 12:50:23 am

I'd say that You Tube is more like the store which provides the photocopy machine used to make the copies. They don't directly profit from the videos since the ads aren't on the same page, and they don't know what is being posted. The question is whether or not they should know.

If the Copy store let you distribute your copies by using their store front.... then were paid by advertisers to have their ads surrounding the "free" pirated material (I know it isn't all pirated, and I am all for all the Indy stuff that is on there).

As to the ads not being on the same page... not sure what YouTube you are going too... you have never noticed how the adds somehow seem to be "inline" with whatever the tagged content is? Hell still freaky to me that in G-Mail when I am helping a friend with a Motherboard, I have ads for Motherboards, Ram, and Processors on either side of my e-mail... But they aren't "reading it".

Google has made a great business knowing what it is their customers are looking at, and targetting ads to that content. That is why they are the biggest thing out there!

GE-Raven

Dash Jones · « **Reply #22 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:38:30 am »

More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out. Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

GE-Raven · « **Reply #23 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:52:12 am »

Quote from: Dash Jones on March 22, 2007, 10:38:30 am

More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out. Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

Under law? Both... however the landowner is the one directly profiting from the use of the space (with full knowledge) for the distribution of copyrighted material. The protection of (we don't control content) is obviously not completely true as they have a built-in feature to allow the report of offensive content for removal (porn). To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff. However they haven't done this... why? Because they know they are making a ton of coin by hosting such material.

One big problem... no one leases anything... no user pays to have their stuff hosted... Google does it for free with the expectation of ad space sales. Therefore the only one making money will be more likely to be charged.

Napster Tried the "we only host it, we don't check it" defense, and lost... I don't see Google with any better excuse.

If you make a space frequented by crack dealers, that may not be your fault. However if you tailor a space to be used by crack dealers that specifically aids them in circumventing law... then you are complicit in the breaking of that law.

GE-Raven

Dash Jones · « **Reply #24 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:56:21 pm »

No, it's still leasing. They are letting others use their property, but in this case for free.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #25 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:02:08 pm »

Quote from: GE-Raven on March 22, 2007, 10:52:12 am

Quote from: Dash Jones on March 22, 2007, 10:38:30 am
More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out. Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

Under law? Both... however the landowner is the one directly profiting from the use of the space (with full knowledge) for the distribution of copyrighted material. The protection of (we don't control content) is obviously not completely true as they have a built-in feature to allow the report of offensive content for removal (porn). To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff. However they haven't done this... why? Because they know they are making a ton of coin by hosting such material.

One big problem... no one leases anything... no user pays to have their stuff hosted... Google does it for free with the expectation of ad space sales. Therefore the only one making money will be more likely to be charged.

Napster Tried the "we only host it, we don't check it" defense, and lost... I don't see Google with any better excuse.

If you make a space frequented by crack dealers, that may not be your fault. However if you tailor a space to be used by crack dealers that specifically aids them in circumventing law... then you are complicit in the breaking of that law.

GE-Raven

Wow Raven, maybe you and I don't think so different on some things after all.

IMHO, Google should get slammed. YouTube is Napster at it's finest in some ways, and yes, I use it, I'll admit it. It's free, did I say FREE? And there are better quality videos than on the darn tv!

In regards to the airwaves? I agree, I remember if you had a sat dish in the 70's and early 80's you had it made. No decoder boxes, nada was needed, and yet the airwaves were all at the touch of your remote. However, this was a luxury for the rich that could plunk down 2k-5k for a quality dish. The poor and downtrodden had to pay for cable, or worse, go out to the cable box and pirate it.

Now us Americans pay top dollar for dish programming, where in Mexico and Latin America they can program your nice DishNetwork card for 60 bucks, all channels (Porn included) ready to go for at least 3 months. If they zap it within the 3 months, never fear, just take the card back and get it reprogrammed, for free.

!

Sarek · « **Reply #26 on:** March 22, 2007, 11:09:27 pm »

Quote from: GE-Raven on March 22, 2007, 09:39:03 am

As to the ads not being on the same page... not sure what YouTube you are going too... you have never noticed how the adds somehow seem to be "inline" with whatever the tagged content is? Hell still freaky to me that in G-Mail when I am helping a friend with a Motherboard, I have ads for Motherboards, Ram, and Processors on either side of my e-mail... But they aren't "reading it".

Interesting, I get absolutely no ads, just links to other videos on the right side of the page and comments below the video.

Quote

To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff.

Yikes! We already have enough problems with copyright holders using the DMCA to shut down websites with bogus claims of copyright violation. Goodbye fair use.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #27 on:** March 22, 2007, 11:19:00 pm »

I like the phrase that is on your nick.

Sometimes I wish I could have traded places with my dear ole stepdad, now the baby boomers had it made!

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2007, 09:25:40 am »

I heard this morning that NBC just sighned a deal with google to put content (old shows and such) on the internet. My guess is they're abandoning youtube.

Could be the final nail in youtubes coffin.

stay tuned.

GE-Raven · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2007, 10:28:30 am »

Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google. Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

Sarek · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2007, 12:48:15 pm »

Quote from: KBF K MalaK on March 23, 2007, 09:25:40 am

I heard this morning that NBC just sighned a deal with google to put content (old shows and such) on the internet. My guess is they're abandoning youtube.

Could be the final nail in youtubes coffin.

stay tuned.

And that's what this lawsuit is really about, to pressure You Tube into a more favorable agreement with Viacom. Neither wants to roll the dice and go to court.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #31 on:** March 23, 2007, 06:30:26 pm »

Quote from: GE-Raven on March 23, 2007, 10:28:30 am

Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google. Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

Exactly, Google did buy YouTube already, so NBC surrendered already.

Electric Eye · « **Reply #32 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:12:30 am »

I will miss this video, even though I have the song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwDRBZ3yhFc

Electric Eye · « **Reply #33 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:13:56 am »

You Tube killed the TV garbage stars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe9FMoElCoU

KBF MalaK · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2007, 12:21:00 pm »

Quote from: Electric Eye on March 23, 2007, 06:30:26 pm

Quote from: GE-Raven on March 23, 2007, 10:28:30 am
Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google. Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

Exactly, Google did buy YouTube already, so NBC surrendered already.

The news report didn't specify who initiated the deal, so maybe it was youTube who signed the deal. In either case YouTube (Google) will be paying Viacom (NBC) for content.

Sarek · « **Reply #35 on:** March 31, 2007, 06:35:22 pm »

When a corporation can get me to agree with MoveOn.org, you know that they are truly evil.

http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/litigation/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003561980

Quote

Suit Alleges Viacom 'Colbert' Letter Abused DMCA
March 23, 2007

By Eriq Gardner

NEW YORK -- Two liberal activist groups have asked a federal court to declare that Viacom Inc. improperly requested that YouTube Inc. remove a parody of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" from its Web site.

MoveOn.org and Brave New Films allege that on Aug. 4 the latter posted "Stop the Falsiness," a mock news report that purports to challenge the popular television host's claims to "truth."

Five days later, "Colbert" producer Richard Dahm viewed the video and learned that MoveOn would be publicizing the video to its members. On March 13, the same day Viacom sued Google and YouTube alleging massive copyright infringement, Viacom delivered a takedown notice to YouTube concerning "Stop the Falsiness."

"Our clients' video is an act of free speech and a fair use of 'Colbert Report' clips," Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry said. "Viacom knows this -- it's the same kind of fair use that 'The Colbert Report' and 'The Daily Show' rely upon every night as they parody other channels' news coverage."

Representing the plaintiffs along with EFF is Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig and a team from the school's Center for Internet and Society. Lessig wrote a New York Times op-ed column that appeared Sunday criticizing Viacom's use of the courts to settle copyright problems.

In the complaint, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs argue that "Stop the Falsiness" is "self-evident fair use" and asks the court to impose injunctive relief and damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for Viacom's misrepresentation of copyright infringement.

Mel Avanzado, a partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro in Los Angeles, said he believes Viacom may have mistakenly included the "Falsiness" clip on their list of offending copyrighted works appearing on YouTube.

"The most interesting thing about the MoveOn complaint is their allegation that a media conglomerate, which obviously places a high value on free speech under the First Amendment, has effectively blocked another organization from exercising those same rights," Avanzado said.

Mark Kesslen of Lowenstein Sandler in New Jersey questioned whether the complaint alleges a sufficient "actual controversy" for a declaratory relief action to be proper.

"I don't see how the plaintiffs can assert there is an actual controversy when Viacom never threatened the plaintiffs with a suit or even communicated with them," Kesslen said. "The complaint, on its face, indicates that Viacom only contacted YouTube."

The case is MoveOn.org Civic Action v. Viacom Int'l., no case number.

News:

Topic: Watch or copy your favorite videos off you tube now (Read 7163 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Watch or copy your favorite videos off you tube now (Read 7163 times)