What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
88 Comments
- DougTanner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+81It's not like he personally went out and told the lawyers to do this... the bosses of the lawyers, who answer to the shareholders are responsible for this. Colbert is employed (or has some sort of temporary contract) with Comedy Central, he's not the boss.
That said, it would be nice if he tried to do something about this, he must have some sort of weight with them. - stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+74Why doesn't Comedy Central upload the episodes themselves with a couple 10 second ads spliced in?
Seems simple to me... - latova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56It's not colbert's fault, it's comedy central's fault. They technically own the clips, and thats the big cheese in this case. Colbert is powerless.
- Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34It matters because Motherload sucks in many ways:
Can't embed it in your website.
You have to watch a lot of ads.
You have to download a proprietary player in Firefox.
I don't blame Comedy Central for wishing to monetize this market (after all, that is why they are in business and we have Colbert at all), but I wish they'd find a way to work it out with YouTube to not have ads in the video. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Seriously, anyone who thinks this is Colbert's fault is an idiot.
That being said, I'm hoping events like this finally start to persuade Average Joe to start thinking about copyright and how it's completely broken. - kpw1179, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Or to put in terms you'll understand.
"You're on notice!" - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Yeah, piss off upper managment by not doing a show -- as required under his CONTRACT. Duh.
It's NOT Colbert who makes it; it's a team of writers, and anything they create is owned by Comedy Central, so don't delude yourself that he has any power (or even cares) to get Comedy Central to allow the shows to be uploaded. - edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13How long until someone sets up ColberTube?
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wow, that joke never gets old. I lied: it's been unfunny and overused for months now.
- TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11How long until that gets shut down? Its a cat and mouse game. Torrent sites anyone?
- Jescro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11http://colberttube.com/ -coming soon apparently
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Copyright is not broken. If I make a video, I own that video. You don't have the right to take my work and go display it somewhere, especially to make money off of it, without my consent.
It is that simple. - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8After all the copyright issues Google is only going to get 800,000 crotch kicking videos for it's 2.6billion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9itunes
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I quit watching Comedy Central after they pulled from YouTube. I liked having both options (TV or YouTube) available to me and I feel insulted they don't consider me a valuable enough fan to give me what I want."
I hadn't ever watched either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report until I saw the clips on YouTube (thanks to Digg users for posting so many!). Now I watch both shows all the time and I use YouTube to find old clips I haven't seen yet. They're two of my favorite shows. I'm actually going to buy a PVR for the sole reason of recording them when I can't stay up that late (they're on at 12:00 and 12:30 in Ontario). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Comedy Central enforces their copyright, youtube fans riot, film at 11.
I will say it again: YouTube begins with YOU because YOU are supposed to create YOUR OWN content, that YOU have the copyright to. You are NOT supposed to put up work you do not have the copyright to. If they wanted you to do that, they would have named it SomeoneElsesTube.
You know, if people were to use YouTube in the manner it was intended, then the next SouthPark might actually be on YouTube. Remember, SouthPark started as a viral christmas video.
Now, quit being dicks and show a little creativity. - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's a good thing Comedy Central gets Stephen Colbert to approve all of their executive decisions or else that open letter would have been really stupid.
- oneiroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Bonchx:
You don't get it. They're mocking the politicians who use hyperbole. It's a criticism on the government at large. These people they mock tend to be unprepared or completely clueless. We need to know this of our government officials! We need to hold them accountable for saying one thing, and doing another. Or saying one thing one day and completely denying it the next. This is the Stewart and Colbert contribution to the political discourse!
Yes people obsess over it. It's a great combination of comedy and political criticism. It makes people feel involved, I mean...it isn't crank yankers or euro trip which is comedy for comedy's sake.
And besides, wasn't there also that study that showed that The Daily Show viewers were better educated than let's say..The Factor? And you completely misinterpreted what I believe is happening: The Daily Show is getting a vote that hadn't voted previously. It's adding accessibility to a demographic who usually did not vote. I would go as far to say that a group young educated americans who would not have voted previously, will vote now because of the show. It makes politics at least seem interesting and important again to that group.
Instead you're saying it only attracts people who are lazy and don't vote...and/or maybe somehow causes the lack of voting? That seems to be faulty logic to me.
Any ways, what's with your prejudice calling people who watch the Daily Show slackers? Are you Bill O'Riley? Or just bitter? - lo0ol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Copyright is not broken."
I'm not sure copyright is broken, but I think you could make a very strong case for copyright needing improvement. One example: duration. If you look at the original intent of copyright, it's to provide a limited term of exclusivity for that piece of IP. Originally things were protected for a decade or two. Now, thanks to the Mickey Mouse effect, we have copyrights automatically given to anything created by you for 70 or 80 years (can't recall the exact number right now). That poses a huge problem for any type of public domain content. Watch Lessig's video for more on that. The public domain is a really good enrichment for society, and if everything gets locked down in perpetuity, we really miss out. - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who Cares?
Comedy Central wants you to watch on thier site. Its thier content, why should Google or YouTube prosper and allow random fans to control the quality. I am glad networks are getting into this, I don't care about commercials I just want to be able to watch TV at my own time and I don't have Tivo in my dorm. - SickFinga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Open source mentality?? A Web 2.0 word for communism?
- TTheSpook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This wont matter in a few years. The "open source" mentality will win over the corporate scum sucking greed mongers. People want to watch what they want, when they want, and want to choose HOW they want.
However, the biggest obstacle in the road for this to happen, is the fact that because of the hypocrisy of American Capitalism, they will try to get laws passed blocking new technology, rather than adapt and grow with social changes. The copyright system will die off as we know it in the next 50 years. - avtomat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This has nothing to do with Colbert himself, his bosses, or his bosses bosses, or the lawyers bosses, or the writing team, or the make-up people, or the janitor... or anyone else - everyone is missing the picture.
This is a simple matter of the lawyers for the advertisers on Comedy Central seeing a business opportunity in kicking up a fuss about the YT vids. Those lawyers recognize a contract breech and because CC is beholden to those who pay the bills (advertisers) then their lawyers force CC to capitulate. All in all, the lawyers on both sides have just drummed up more business with which to bill the advertisers that have them on retainer, and CC who have them on retainer. I'll bet money it was neither Colbert, the writers, Stewart, their bosses, shareholders at CC or even shareholders at the advertisers. It was purely the lawyers. They're just earning their bread. And a damn big loaf it is. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Like Napster, the whole YouTube thing isn't just about people going around the system. It's about widespread mainstream seemingly acceptable mass distribution of copyrighted materials.
Sure, people will always be able to work their way around restrictions, but when they don't have to, when the material is right in front of them, something entirely different happens as we've seen with YouTube.
If Napster had continued the way it was, there would have never been a place for iTunes. Google wants the YouTube brand to be the defacto micropayment video distribution standard. None of this copyright crack down is doing anything to hurt the YouTube brand for making money, it's all helping legitimize it in the eyes of copyright holders. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How is copyright "completely broken" just because Comedy Central didn't want its content pirated on YouTube? Just because you like something doesn't mean a company should give up all its intellectual property and copyrights.
- nkassi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I believe he writes most of his stuff anyways. John Stewart writes a lot of it too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2steve...that is probably what they WILL do. (Or something lik ethat.) But it makes no sense to do that until all the unauthorized uploads are removed.
Everyone wants to whine that the networks refuse to embrace the technology. Well, the first step in doing that is to removed copyright infringement FROM the new technology so they can embrace it.
Think about it. They go and try to make a deal with Gillette to include a 10 second ad for Fusion razers. Then they have to say "Well, our video will be up there, but there will also be 25 unauthorized clips of the same show without your advertisement."
Doesn't exactly give the network any leverage in the marketing department. - Webwonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Comedy Central IS NOT prohibiting the posting of all segment clips on YouTube. The DMCA notice apparently only applies to the posting of entire shows. It appears short clips/skits/segments are still OK.
- k3ndal1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is that pronounced "Cole-bear Yoob"?
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hell with that, let's get a Colbert Podcast! Or exclusive webisodes!
- dep01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If people assume Stephen Colbert has ANY SAY in what Comedy Central lawyers tell YouTube... they're very wrong.
- latova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think he's willing to risk his job over this, but he's generally ok with the notion of people watching him on youtube, but comedy central isn't.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's terrible that they're doing this. I didn't become a huge fan of the show until after seeing clips on YouTube. Others may miss out.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Please explain how the corporations owned and run by the "corporate scum sucking greed mongers" will make money.
Speaking of money, how do you get your money? After all, charging for your work makes you a "scum sucking greed monger" too. - CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Except doing so would probably put any artist at risk of failing to perform their contract in good faith. They would be creating material for their company to sell, then saying the company shouldn't be selling it.
- JerseyTim, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6It's not Colbert's fault, but Comedy Central has their heads up their collective asses.
Their fans were seeking out what are basically commercials for their shows. Most other shows would kill for this kind of exposure. They're biting the hands that feed them. - psyduck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I can only hope this actually happens, perhaps then the Digg video section will have a little variety other than the constant clips of Colbert and Stewart.
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Comedy Central needs to sign a revenue-sharing agreement with YouTube. Clips back, problem solved.
- talman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Comedy Central . . . You're on notice!
- tkinnun0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sharing what revenue?
- sapient45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think that stephen has quite a bit of control. not a lot and not legally. but the way i see it is that people watch the show because of stephen not because its aired in comedy central. so if stephen is not around then there would be no show and no show equal no money they had with the show. but then again if he does not do the show, im not sure how he would get some $$$....
and well i can sort of understand why comedy central wants it off the web. they like money..everybody likes money....its all about the money... - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5They just want the ad revenue from people going to their site to view the clips.
They made more money off the new viewers they acquired than they will off the site's ad revenue, and they will probably lose significant audience and revenue over the decision to pull them from YouTube.
I quit watching Comedy Central after they pulled from YouTube. I liked having both options (TV or YouTube) available to me and I feel insulted they don't consider me a valuable enough fan to give me what I want.
I'm sure others agree... - search, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, it remains to be seen that YouTube is someplace where you can upload your video and depend on seeing money come in. Companies just aren't willing to risk it yet.
In the case of Comedy Central, they could probably do better having clips on YouTube that they post themselves and then have whole shows on their Motherload site.
I think we all know that eventually Google is going to put ads on the videos in some form or another ESPECIALLY when you embed it on your blog/website (giving Google credit, the ads will proably be very short - 10 seconds tops - and related to your site). In the mean time, Comedy Central has only one way of actually knowing that they can make some sort of money publishing the videos on the web and that is on their own site.
It's not Colberts fault. I am pretty sure the company wants this done. I wouldn't even know the daily show existed AND was funny without people selecting their favorite clips. - Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He might not be able to voice his true opinion either way.
But no matter how he feels it wouldn't change my opinion of him.
It is sad though they did this I would have never known about that show had it not been for youtube. So IMHO I think its a bad move. I can understand south park cause they sell DVDs but I don't see the point for daily show or Colbert.
I do watch the show when it airs now though. So it doesn't really make much difference to me. And anyone who cant get comedy central could simply torrent them anyway, - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are lots of people defending Colbert in here. If Colbert didn't like this move, he could speak out about it on his show.
If he can't and doesn't, that doesn't change your opinion of him at all?
I'd like him to just come out and agree with it. This is what he makes money from, and it will probably be back on youtube with him hooked up to make money. - PRlME, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3random fan? you mean about ah million random fans. As stated in the blog if you were reading it. we r one of the reasons his show is so popular. He online fan base is to large to ignore (i dont look at TV anymore)
- hobg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe Comedy Central should take a cue from CBS and post clips on YouTube themselves? Like so: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CBS
- TTheSpook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2^Yage2006
proves another point. People will go around the system to have it their way anyways. They can try to pass all the laws they want, but some smart fella will find a way around it, today its torrents, next month/year, it might be something different.
Also, if i have basic cable, cant i tape the show? Couldn't i invite a friend over to watch it? Is that stealing? So whats the difference between an "online" friend taping it and showing it to me? Doesn't make too much sense if you ask me. We shouldn't have to be slaves to a networks time schedule. We also are TIRED of the offensively stupid advertising we DON'T want to see. It's too bad that ***** Geico gecko is a necessary evil eh?
Open Source Mentality is the way of the future. Realize it and accept it. :) - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"It's not like he personally went out and told the lawyers to do this... the bosses of the lawyers, who answer to the shareholders are responsible for this."
But he does have a voice. He could say something on his show.
Of course, it's unlikely he would do that without knowing ahead of time what the result is.
Odds are he didn't like the sheer amount of content on youtube either. It was basically a best-of DVD where he got no cut. Expect the content to come back with his show's advertisers in tow. - Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rand is looking more and more prescient every day.
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is