New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Viacom Strikes Google, YouTube with Lawsuit........The Last Days Of Music Videos!!! http://www.slyck.com/story1441.html
March 13, 2007 Thomas Mennecke Just about everyone who's been following the Viacom/Google-YouTube drama is aware of just how close a deal was to being cut. Earlier this year, the anticipation was that Viacom would soon begin distributing its work on Google's YouTube. Viacom is the parent of many popular TV networks, such as MTV, Comedy Central, VH1, and Spike TV. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to casually troll YouTube and find various programming from these networks. However there are far fewer instances of what Viacom calls infringing material lately, as YouTube responded to an October demand to remove various Comedy Central clips. The heat was turned up in February, when Viacom once again demanded that YouTube remove over 100,000 video clips. These demands recurred throughout the Viacom/YouTube negotiation process. Seemingly frustrated at YouTube's progress, Viacom stunningly backed out of any possible distribution deal and instead opted to sign on with the lesser known "Joost". "After months of ongoing discussions with YouTube and Google, it has become clear that YouTube is unwilling to come to a fair market agreement that would make Viacom content available to YouTube users," Viacom said in a statement. "Filtering tools promised repeatedly by YouTube and Google have not been put in place, and they continue to host and stream vast amounts of unauthorized video." Although loosing the Viacom deal was a serious blow to YouTube, not very many people expected this latest move. In an announcement made today, Viacom has sued both Google and YouTube in Federal Court in the southern district of New York. “YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. 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. In fact, YouTube’s strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement." Viacom's statement almost sounds like a lawsuit doctrine against any of the multitude of P2P networks sued out of existence. However Google/YouTube, unlike most P2P companies, is a multi-billion dollar enterprise capable of defending itself in court. While Google/YouTube may be able to defend itself, Viacom's latest move may only fuel an already established doubt regarding the viability of legitimate online video distribution. Regardless, Google appears less than impressed with Viacom's lawsuit, and issued the following statement: "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." TVD's SIDENOTE: Google/YouTube were set up. Those fools over at ViaCON are painting a false picture of YouTube as "irresponsible". I don't believe this bullshyt not one bit.  [b] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: http://www.slyck.com/story1441.html
March 13, 2007 Thomas Mennecke Just about everyone who's been following the Viacom/Google-YouTube drama is aware of just how close a deal was to being cut. Earlier this year, the anticipation was that Viacom would soon begin distributing its work on Google's YouTube. Viacom is the parent of many popular TV networks, such as MTV, Comedy Central, VH1, and Spike TV. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to casually troll YouTube and find various programming from these networks. However there are far fewer instances of what Viacom calls infringing material lately, as YouTube responded to an October demand to remove various Comedy Central clips. The heat was turned up in February, when Viacom once again demanded that YouTube remove over 100,000 video clips. These demands recurred throughout the Viacom/YouTube negotiation process. Seemingly frustrated at YouTube's progress, Viacom stunningly backed out of any possible distribution deal and instead opted to sign on with the lesser known "Joost". "After months of ongoing discussions with YouTube and Google, it has become clear that YouTube is unwilling to come to a fair market agreement that would make Viacom content available to YouTube users," Viacom said in a statement. "Filtering tools promised repeatedly by YouTube and Google have not been put in place, and they continue to host and stream vast amounts of unauthorized video." Although loosing the Viacom deal was a serious blow to YouTube, not very many people expected this latest move. In an announcement made today, Viacom has sued both Google and YouTube in Federal Court in the southern district of New York. “YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. 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. In fact, YouTube’s strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement." Viacom's statement almost sounds like a lawsuit doctrine against any of the multitude of P2P networks sued out of existence. However Google/YouTube, unlike most P2P companies, is a multi-billion dollar enterprise capable of defending itself in court. While Google/YouTube may be able to defend itself, Viacom's latest move may only fuel an already established doubt regarding the viability of legitimate online video distribution. Regardless, Google appears less than impressed with Viacom's lawsuit, and issued the following statement: "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." TVD's SIDENOTE: Google/YouTube were set up. Those fools over at ViaCON are painting a false picture of YouTube as "irresponsible". I don't believe this bullshyt not one bit. [b]This shit makes me sick. Its nothing more than corporations and GREED, if theres a dollar to be made they will make it. Honestly if it wasnt for YouTube i wouldnt have seen 99% of the new music videos out, mainly because there is no music station anymore, and dont tell me MTV or Bet or MTV2 or Vh1, because none of those are music stations at this point. I recently saw a report that some artists with new releases are focusing their attention on the European market and not the US market, mainly because they feel there is no outlet for them, there are no music shows that they can go on to perform and promote and in Europe thats all they have. Once again i think Labels need to realize why are people turning to YouTube, are they downloading videos? or are they just SICK AND TIRED of the shit on MTV, like Super sweet sixteen and Road Rules and Real World, jesus christ why are these people so stupid. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They have a right to protect their copyrights for sure, but obviously there is a demand to see video streams of certain stuff, so I wish Viacom would do like CBS and embrace the Youtube phenomenon. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CinisterCee said: They have a right to protect their copyrights for sure, but obviously there is a demand to see video streams of certain stuff, so I wish Viacom would do like CBS and embrace the Youtube phenomenon.
All i can really say is that people dont really realize what is going on here, and thats Viacom wants to control everything and 100% how people get their products. Hmmm i think its Germany late 1930's if U ask me. The bullshit that YouTube is making money is nuts, the money they make is off of banners on their site, no ones paying for the Videos, thats all Viacom wants $$$. It wants a major piece of the pie. I think there will be some serious issues raised here on what exaclty Viacom does own and doesnt own. True it owns its shows like Mtv etc.. but does it own the artists? If Beyonce performs on a show in England and someone posts a video from the show, can Viacom claim ownership to that? Where will it end? If artists had "balls" they would all just threaten to walk off their labels. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: CinisterCee said: They have a right to protect their copyrights for sure, but obviously there is a demand to see video streams of certain stuff, so I wish Viacom would do like CBS and embrace the Youtube phenomenon.
All i can really say is that people dont really realize what is going on here, and thats Viacom wants to control everything and 100% how people get their products. Hmmm i think its Germany late 1930's if U ask me. The bullshit that YouTube is making money is nuts, the money they make is off of banners on their site, no ones paying for the Videos, thats all Viacom wants $$$. It wants a major piece of the pie. I think there will be some serious issues raised here on what exaclty Viacom does own and doesnt own. True it owns its shows like Mtv etc.. but does it own the artists? If Beyonce performs on a show in England and someone posts a video from the show, can Viacom claim ownership to that? Where will it end? If artists had "balls" they would all just threaten to walk off their labels. I couldn't agree more. It would also show that the artists wanted their fans to have access to stuff they wanted. I know for a fact, my respect for ANY artist who did this would go WAY up. Gotta take a stand in this day and age. "To make an impact you have to go to extremes." [Edited 3/13/07 21:01pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JasonStar said: lastdecember said: All i can really say is that people dont really realize what is going on here, and thats Viacom wants to control everything and 100% how people get their products. Hmmm i think its Germany late 1930's if U ask me. The bullshit that YouTube is making money is nuts, the money they make is off of banners on their site, no ones paying for the Videos, thats all Viacom wants $$$. It wants a major piece of the pie. I think there will be some serious issues raised here on what exaclty Viacom does own and doesnt own. True it owns its shows like Mtv etc.. but does it own the artists? If Beyonce performs on a show in England and someone posts a video from the show, can Viacom claim ownership to that? Where will it end? If artists had "balls" they would all just threaten to walk off their labels. I couldn't agree more. It would also show that the artists wanted their fans to have access to stuff they wanted. I know for a fact, my respect for ANY artist who did this would go WAY up. Gotta take a stand in this day and age. "To make an impact you have to go to extremes." [Edited 3/13/07 21:01pm] Exactly, i would love to see someone take a stand in this matter, and im not talking about an artist who is not really a major player like a Van Hunt or Joss Stone, im talking someone who is bringing in BIG $$$ for their labels, like Beyonce or Jay Z etc...Stop saying at award shows "its all about the fans" PROVE IT and take one for the team!! [Edited 3/13/07 21:08pm] "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The company owns the material. They have a right to protect their stuff. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
coolcat said: The company owns the material. They have a right to protect their stuff.
That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CinisterCee said: coolcat said: The company owns the material. They have a right to protect their stuff.
That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. There really is no alternative. I really dont know why artists make videos anymore since there is no music video station that really will play it. People think that Viacon owns about 20-30% of the airwaves and media, SORRY its more like 80-90% of it, which back in the day, was illegal. I remember when Rupert Murdoch owned the New York Post and he went to buy the FOX channel they made him give up the the Post because it was considered owning too much media, imagine they imposed that shit now. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: CinisterCee said: That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. There really is no alternative. I really dont know why artists make videos anymore since there is no music video station that really will play it. People think that Viacon owns about 20-30% of the airwaves and media, SORRY its more like 80-90% of it, which back in the day, was illegal. I remember when Rupert Murdoch owned the New York Post and he went to buy the FOX channel they made him give up the the Post because it was considered owning too much media, imagine they imposed that shit now. Right! Leave it to the industry to screw a good thing. First napster Next YouTube How sad... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JasonStar said: lastdecember said: There really is no alternative. I really dont know why artists make videos anymore since there is no music video station that really will play it. People think that Viacon owns about 20-30% of the airwaves and media, SORRY its more like 80-90% of it, which back in the day, was illegal. I remember when Rupert Murdoch owned the New York Post and he went to buy the FOX channel they made him give up the the Post because it was considered owning too much media, imagine they imposed that shit now. Right! Leave it to the industry to screw a good thing. First napster Next YouTube How sad... I cant believe how "consolidated" everything has become. I remember PRINCE speaking on that word "Consolidation" recently at the UK Hall of Fame and of course people said he was preaching, but think about what he was saying. Mainly that todays Consolidation would have caused artists like James Brown,EWF,Fleetwood Mac,Chicago,SLy and the Family Stone, etc...to NEVER have been appreciated in this time, or even seen or heard. I really amazes me how people just accept what they are fed on a daily basis. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CinisterCee said: coolcat said: The company owns the material. They have a right to protect their stuff.
That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. YouTube didn't want to pay Viacom's asking price, which indicates to me a) Viacom knows it benefits from YouTube exposure; and b) Viacom wants a piece of the action, and who's to blame them, regardless of their motives? As coolcat said, it's their stuff. I might not like it if my favorite Prince vids or old Soul Train clips are taken off. The success of Napster, YouTube, MySpace et al. should send rights holders a message: There is a market for all sorts of media that is currently ignored. Make your product available in a common format and a reasonable price and many (but likely not most) folks will pay the freight. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: CinisterCee said: That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. YouTube didn't want to pay Viacom's asking price, which indicates to me a) Viacom knows it benefits from YouTube exposure; and b) Viacom wants a piece of the action, and who's to blame them, regardless of their motives? As coolcat said, it's their stuff. I might not like it if my favorite Prince vids or old Soul Train clips are taken off. The success of Napster, YouTube, MySpace et al. should send rights holders a message: There is a market for all sorts of media that is currently ignored. Make your product available in a common format and a reasonable price and many (but likely not most) folks will pay the freight. Well its strictly profit, anywhere Viacom can make it, it will. YouTube has been out there for awhile now and there wasnt an issue, the fact that YouTube is now an alternative to things like MTV/VH1/BET and radio there is an issue. I think Viacom is missing the issue here, PEOPLE want these things and im sure they would pay for it if it was reasonable, but the problem Viacom mainly has is that if they released say a "Best of Soul Train DVD" they would have to pay those artists too, and Viacom is not interested in artists at all, so i hope people arent thinking that Viacom has the artists as their interest, its their own pockets. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 fuckin' sucks!
there were some kickass James Brown clips on youtube, there gone. And some Prince vids I aint never seen, gone. GIT THAT CORN OUTTA MY FACE!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It really is a shame how reliant I’ve become on YouTube for music videos and performances in general. I don’t expect to see anything on MTV or VH1 especially if it’s not in the top 20. YouTube has been my saving grace.
MTV should just change their name to CTV since all they show is Crap. TRL and a few random hours of music here and there does not constitute music television. And VH1, the channel that’ll make a show out of just about anything, is just as bad but for a slightly older demographic. BET... I don’t know what to say about that channel. After they purposely cancelled all thought provoking, intelligent programming, I forgot what channel they’re even on. Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What people are missing, is that the digital revolution is on and all of this stuff will show up somewhere else again for free. If they got their shit together they may even profit from handling this the right way. Ask Napster how it's doing compared to itunes, I mean why is it that these corporate billionaires can't learn from the recent past, it's kind of  [Edited 3/14/07 16:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JackieBlue said: It really is a shame how reliant I’ve become on YouTube for music videos and performances in general. I don’t expect to see anything on MTV or VH1 especially if it’s not in the top 20. YouTube has been my saving grace.
MTV should just change their name to CTV since all they show is Crap. TRL and a few random hours of music here and there does not constitute music television. And VH1, the channel that’ll make a show out of just about anything, is just as bad but for a slightly older demographic. BET... I don’t know what to say about that channel. After they purposely cancelled all thought provoking, intelligent programming, I forgot what channel they’re even on. Exactly, if it wasnt for YouTube i wouldnt really see any new videos. I dont have the patience to watch any of these staions and hope that they will play a new video i wanna see. Im tired of hearing people say, they play videos you just have to search for them. Bull, if your name is Music TV then you need to play music to live up to that name. If you wanna show Reality shows 24/7 then change your name and someone needs to create an alternative. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: namepeace said:
CinisterCee said:
That's really the bottom line, it's just that they offer no similar alternative. YouTube didn't want to pay Viacom's asking price, which indicates to me a) Viacom knows it benefits from YouTube exposure; and b) Viacom wants a piece of the action, and who's to blame them, regardless of their motives? As coolcat said, it's their stuff. I might not like it if my favorite Prince vids or old Soul Train clips are taken off. The success of Napster, YouTube, MySpace et al. should send rights holders a message: There is a market for all sorts of media that is currently ignored. Make your product available in a common format and a reasonable price and many (but likely not most) folks will pay the freight. Well its strictly profit, anywhere Viacom can make it, it will. YouTube has been out there for awhile now and there wasnt an issue, the fact that YouTube is now an alternative to things like MTV/VH1/BET and radio there is an issue. I think Viacom is missing the issue here, PEOPLE want these things and im sure they would pay for it if it was reasonable, but the problem Viacom mainly has is that if they released say a "Best of Soul Train DVD" they would have to pay those artists too, and Viacom is not interested in artists at all, so i hope people arent thinking that Viacom has the artists as their interest, its their own pockets. Just to let you know, Viacom doesn't distribute "Soul Train", the Tribune Company does. But anyway, it sounds to me like this is a blatant money grab by Viacom over distribution rights. The article mentioned that Google/YouTube and Vicaom were really close to signing a distribution deal, but that Viacom backed out at the last minute, even after Google was complying with their requests to remove copyrighted material. However, there is a legitimate issue for Viacom regarding Google being a media alternative to the broadcast networks and larger cable channels and losing viewers to Google. Having said that, YouTube is probably the greatest platform the television networks have had in years. Until the "Lazy Sunday" skit was posted on YouTube, most people didn't even know that Saturday Night Live was still relevant as a program, let alone funny (on occasion). By attacking Google, they will only encourage viewers to ditch the TV networks and thereby accelerate their own demise. I remember that NBC/Universal also threatened to sue Google over YouTube, but I believe that they came up with a revenue sharing deal since then. I don;t know whether FOX has sued Google over the shows on their networks, but I also know that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX, bought MySpace and is incorporating FOX shows onto MySpace. I think this desperate action by Viacom is exposing who the new media titans are (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, Comcast, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. who owns FOX, MySpace, & DirecTV).  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Slave2daGroove said: What people are missing, is that the digital revolution is on and all of this stuff will show up somewhere else again for free. If they got their shit together they may even profit from handling this the right way. Ask Napster how it's doing compared to itunes, I mean why is it that these corporate billionaires can't learn from the recent past, it's kind of
[Edited 3/14/07 16:15pm] I was thinking the same thing | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
728huey said: lastdecember said:
namepeace said:
Well its strictly profit, anywhere Viacom can make it, it will. YouTube has been out there for awhile now and there wasnt an issue, the fact that YouTube is now an alternative to things like MTV/VH1/BET and radio there is an issue. I think Viacom is missing the issue here, PEOPLE want these things and im sure they would pay for it if it was reasonable, but the problem Viacom mainly has is that if they released say a "Best of Soul Train DVD" they would have to pay those artists too, and Viacom is not interested in artists at all, so i hope people arent thinking that Viacom has the artists as their interest, its their own pockets. Just to let you know, Viacom doesn't distribute "Soul Train", the Tribune Company does. But anyway, it sounds to me like this is a blatant money grab by Viacom over distribution rights. The article mentioned that Google/YouTube and Vicaom were really close to signing a distribution deal, but that Viacom backed out at the last minute, even after Google was complying with their requests to remove copyrighted material. However, there is a legitimate issue for Viacom regarding Google being a media alternative to the broadcast networks and larger cable channels and losing viewers to Google. Having said that, YouTube is probably the greatest platform the television networks have had in years. Until the "Lazy Sunday" skit was posted on YouTube, most people didn't even know that Saturday Night Live was still relevant as a program, let alone funny (on occasion). By attacking Google, they will only encourage viewers to ditch the TV networks and thereby accelerate their own demise. I remember that NBC/Universal also threatened to sue Google over YouTube, but I believe that they came up with a revenue sharing deal since then. I don;t know whether FOX has sued Google over the shows on their networks, but I also know that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX, bought MySpace and is incorporating FOX shows onto MySpace. I think this desperate action by Viacom is exposing who the new media titans are (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, Comcast, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. who owns FOX, MySpace, & DirecTV). Of course this has nothing to do with ownership, but artists that are under contract by anything owned by a Viacom company can not be shown, so if directly something is not owned, if you trace the company to its source it will shown that its owned by Viacom. To put it into a really obscure reference, this girl that i know is a model and she does alot of print stuff, about a year ago she was hired to be a dancer for one concert performed by Pitbull and the Ying Yang Twins, well one song featured her as the main dancer, so she or a friend of hers put the video of that performance up, which she legally owned, however now the clip was removed since both of artists in question are under contract by Viacom companies. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
728huey said: lastdecember said: That's it.
namepeace said:
Well its strictly profit, anywhere Viacom can make it, it will. YouTube has been out there for awhile now and there wasnt an issue, the fact that YouTube is now an alternative to things like MTV/VH1/BET and radio there is an issue. I think Viacom is missing the issue here, PEOPLE want these things and im sure they would pay for it if it was reasonable, but the problem Viacom mainly has is that if they released say a "Best of Soul Train DVD" they would have to pay those artists too, and Viacom is not interested in artists at all, so i hope people arent thinking that Viacom has the artists as their interest, its their own pockets. Just to let you know, Viacom doesn't distribute "Soul Train", the Tribune Company does. But anyway, it sounds to me like this is a blatant money grab by Viacom over distribution rights. The article mentioned that Google/YouTube and Vicaom were really close to signing a distribution deal, but that Viacom backed out at the last minute, even after Google was complying with their requests to remove copyrighted material. However, there is a legitimate issue for Viacom regarding Google being a media alternative to the broadcast networks and larger cable channels and losing viewers to Google. Having said that, YouTube is probably the greatest platform the television networks have had in years. Until the "Lazy Sunday" skit was posted on YouTube, most people didn't even know that Saturday Night Live was still relevant as a program, let alone funny (on occasion). By attacking Google, they will only encourage viewers to ditch the TV networks and thereby accelerate their own demise. I remember that NBC/Universal also threatened to sue Google over YouTube, but I believe that they came up with a revenue sharing deal since then. I don;t know whether FOX has sued Google over the shows on their networks, but I also know that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX, bought MySpace and is incorporating FOX shows onto MySpace. I think this desperate action by Viacom is exposing who the new media titans are (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, Comcast, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. who owns FOX, MySpace, & DirecTV). There's nothing wrong with Viacom wanting to share the revenue, though. They will probably find a happy medium. On one hand they know that YouTube is bringing attention to shows that people were not aware of, on the other it takes away just as many eyeballs (or more) because many will skip a show altogether because they know the highlights will be YouTubed. I do this all the time. Also correct in that this a desperate act by Viacom. This is the desperation of those that don't embrace change, or those that try to hold it off. Google is the realization of all the things the dot.com era was about and the Viacoms are partially the reason for the crash. If they had embraced the inevitable instead of doing everything in their power to postpone or prevent it, they would be where Google is today. But that's how it always works. One persons fear to move makes way for those that are fearless....even if they have less means. Why do you like playing around with my narrow scope of reality? - Stupify | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Where's the advertising on youtube? I don't recall ever seeing an ad... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Damn, I love YouTube!!!!!  RIP, mom. I will forever miss and love you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 looking for you in the woods tonight Switch FC SW-2874-2863-4789 (Rum&Coke) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AnckSuNamun said: That's a great idea, I'm gonna start doing that. There are so many great videos I want to keep. RIP, mom. I will forever miss and love you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
728huey said:[quote]
Just to let you know, Viacom doesn't distribute "Soul Train", the Tribune Company does.
I was just giving an example of supply and demand. This fact, while giving me something I didn't know, is irrelevant to my point. But anyway, it sounds to me like this is a blatant money grab by Viacom over distribution rights. The article mentioned that Google/YouTube and Vicaom were really close to signing a distribution deal, but that Viacom backed out at the last minute, even after Google was complying with their requests to remove copyrighted material. However, there is a legitimate issue for Viacom regarding Google being a media alternative to the broadcast networks and larger cable channels and losing viewers to Google. Having said that, YouTube is probably the greatest platform the television networks have had in years. Until the "Lazy Sunday" skit was posted on YouTube, most people didn't even know that Saturday Night Live was still relevant as a program, let alone funny (on occasion). By attacking Google, they will only encourage viewers to ditch the TV networks and thereby accelerate their own demise.
The record companies learned that very expensive lesson in the late 90's and earlier in the decade. That being said, it is Viacom's prerogative as to how to enforce their rights. Their business acumen, such as it is, has little to do with it. I remember that NBC/Universal also threatened to sue Google over YouTube, but I believe that they came up with a revenue sharing deal since then. I don;t know whether FOX has sued Google over the shows on their networks, but I also know that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX, bought MySpace and is incorporating FOX shows onto MySpace. I think this desperate action by Viacom is exposing who the new media titans are (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, Comcast, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. who owns FOX, MySpace, & DirecTV).
I agree. But again, it's their property and they have the right to manage it. Or mismanage it. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |