Whizkid Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Viacom, which owns MTV and Nickelodeon, says YouTube uses its shows illegally. Viacom alleges that about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes have been loaded onto YouTube's site and viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Google says it is "confident" that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders. As well as more than $1bn in damages, the legal action seeks an injunction to prevent what Viacom calls "massive intentional copyright infringement". 'Clearly illegal' "YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site," said Viacom in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws." Last month, Viacom, which also owns cable networks VH1 and Comedy Central, told YouTube to remove 100,000 "unauthorised" clips. Viacom said its demand came after YouTube and Google failed to install tools to "filter" the unauthorised video clips following negotiations. "There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process," it said. "This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity." Doing deals A Google spokesperson said: "We have not received the lawsuit but are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree. "YouTube is great for users and offers real opportunities to rights holders: the opportunity to interact with users; to promote their content to a young and growing audience; and to tap into the online advertising market. "We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users, more traffic and build a stronger community." The soaring popularity of YouTube has led traditional media to worry that the displaying of clips from their programmes - without compensation - will lure away viewers, and, as a result, advertising revenue. Google, which paid $1.65bn for YouTube last year, has been trying to win permission from media companies to broadcast output legally on YouTube in exchange for payment, avoiding the threat of legal action. Separately, the BBC has struck a content deal with YouTube to showcase short clips of BBC content. The BBC hopes that the deal will help it reach YouTube's monthly audience of more than 70 million users and drive extra traffic to its own website. The corporation will also get a share of the advertising revenue generated by traffic to the new YouTube channels. This is bad soon there will be no copyrighted stuff on youtube anymore.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I had this crazy idea that artist most likely wants as many people as possible to review their music. Even if it is a music video. I think YouTube is doing the artists a service.
The Bard Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Ah, but MTV doesn't really have a whole lot to do with music, now does it?
Whizkid Posted March 13, 2007 Author Posted March 13, 2007 No thats just MTV. MTV 2 has good music on it.
Guest Jordan Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Ah, but MTV doesn't really have a whole lot to do with music, now does it? Its more bull shit than anything these days. Its basically a jist of: Lawyer A: Hey, did you hear? Youtube got bought by Google? Lawyer B: Yeah... so? Lawyer A: Google are loaded! Lawyer C: Sweet! Lets sue them for something like... I dunno a BILLION dollars? Lawyer A & B: Yeah! Yeah!
The Bard Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Totally, I doubt Youtube, before they were bought out had anywhere near enough money to be worth suing at all. And considering that it's only really clips of shows that are posted, Youtube are kinda publicising the shows. Pretty ridiculous grounds for a lawsuit.
AshMat Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Like Jordan basically said. Just more people trying to get a piece of the big businesses.
AshMat Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 nice name retro link or ashmat I aws retro-lover, retro_link still exists.
Whizkid Posted March 13, 2007 Author Posted March 13, 2007 sorry i was looking at a post by fierce link I got confused
4q2 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Its the usual bullshit.....You Tube is a great internet media asset imho. At times it breaches copyright, but in a low quality way. I stumbled upon it looking for various music feeds, but if MTV et al want to force the rips over to torrents and p2p its their loss.
That Guy Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 What really annoys me about copyright bollocks, when a music company comes out and says piracy cost us christ knows how much, how many people that own an illegal copy would still have it if they had to pay for it?
Rummy Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 sorry i was looking at a post by fierce link I got confused You know, this made me giggle as I thought how it would be the other way round. As for them suing youtube, I say good, I dunno why, but I apparently hate google being so rich and owning so much?
The Peeps Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 greedy moneygrabbers YouTube is a fantastic site, most of the stuff that infringes copyright laws is only about 2 minutes long because it's just a clip of a funny moment in a sitcom or something... admittedly there are people that upload whole seasons of shows but they're usually old ones anyway.
Shorty Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Oh dear, google are confident the courts will agree? In a country where you can spill coffee on yourself in your car and sue the restaurant for selling it to you? Hmm....
blender Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 theres lots of commercialise content now though bbc worldwide, universal etc.. so I am not worried. Porn and how to get it worries more.
Jasper Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I had this crazy idea that artist most likely wants as many people as possible to review their music. Even if it is a music video. I think YouTube is doing the artists a service. The artist wants as many people as possible to hear their music, the companies (record labels and such) want to make as much money as possible. The later if the one that controlles it. Viacom is suing for a simple reason: their own material, wich they could re-use to grab advertising money, is being thrown on the web courtesy of YouTube - and it's an infrigment on the copyright, wich means that Viacom doesn't profit from it. Sorry, lad, but Viacom might be right on this one. I'm not saying they should get billions of dollars from YouTube, but Google should get more money in there to check the movies that are placed online on copyright. I'm not complaining that people pu them online, though, since it makes it possible to wacth great series like HEROES without waiting for them to get on local television.
Shorty Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I'm not complaining that people pu them online, though, since it makes it possible to wacth great series like HEROES without waiting for them to get on local television. So does P2P, and nothing will ever stop that. Viacom sue Youtube because they're an easy target, they're huge, the media knows they're there and understands the site and everyone knows they're loaded thanks to google. This isn't about protecting copyright, as Jordan says, its just a way of making money. No-one can prevent illegal sharing of movies, videos, software and music, but they can certainly throw the book at a big company like Youtube for $1bn.
Roostophe Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 YouTube is a great site, when you look past all the stupid comments that people make about the videos, I've been able to see videos of songs I haven't heard in ages. I'm not sure if it is YouTube's fault for all the Viacom-owned content, although YouTube do check all videos that are uploaded onto the website, the videos are uploaded by the general public, who don't know or care about laws such as this. Maybe YouTube don't know which videos violate the copyright laws.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Surely it could be worked around with simple advertisement before certain videos.
Noodleman Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I'm not sure if it is YouTube's fault for all the Viacom-owned content, although YouTube do check all videos that are uploaded onto the website, the videos are uploaded by the general public, who don't know or care about laws such as this. Maybe YouTube don't know which videos violate the copyright laws. Yeah that defence worked really well for Napster.
Roostophe Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Yeah that defence worked really well for Napster. Ten
Platty Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I love youtube and have over 100 videos on there myself. It would be a big shame if this goes ahead and viacom win.
Recommended Posts