What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
127 Comments
- badassninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+191The Following WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME but a user comment on the page its self under the user name, "greasyguide".
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Or lets go a little bit deeper. Viacom sends out video clips in mov format to bloggers. Viacom's marketing department has sent me a total of 5 video clips and asked me to give them free exposure for thier TV shows. So I'm like ok cool...I'll do it. So I uploaded the clips to Youtube because Viacom doesn't give bloggers free hosting on Viacom's servers. So I upload the clip and I run it on my site. A few months later I get a take down notice from YouTube stating that I had illegal clips in my account and that they where removing them. YouTube then fully shuts down my YouTube account. After 6 e-mails back to YouTube they re-open my account but remove the clips send to me via Viacom's PR departments, Vh1's PR departments.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" - Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+123Dear Viacom: You are snail paced dinosaur media. Unless you get your act together a little quicker, you'll soon be in the same place the major labels are right now.
Good luck with all that,
Media Consumers - badassninja, on 10/10/2007, -3/+78I would sue just because my clip was played on something as lame a VH1.
- ukdave, on 10/10/2007, -2/+73Talk about the pot calling the kettle black
- smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51Viacom needs to fix MTV before they stop the YouTube crap.
Martha Stewart said on Sirius "Ok, trivia. We all know the first video MTV ever played. But what was the last?"
They just hate video clips, period. - betacmag4u, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35 Why doesn't Google just leverage buy out Viacom and dismantle it like the Gecko would?
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35So Viacom steals a video and then complains about the original? This is funny in so many ways; it's like a comedy skit that wrote itself.
- bunnysl4y3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17So basically, Viacom gets free money from lawsuits like this. Pitiful.
- raymore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Someone say pot?
- Racerx52, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Who is Chaney?
- Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16***** hypocrites.
- etnu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Viacom really killled a good thing they had going. Bandwidth considerations and poor quality make sites like youtube a non-issue for serious copyright infringment, and clips being shown there boosted popularity of many of their shows.
Do they really think that they're losing some huge amount of revenue when day-old clips of Colbert are put up? Somebody isn't going to watch the 4th daily rerun or something?
I can certainly understand complaints about people uploading high quality, full length movies (or TV shows), but that was never an issue on YouTube anyway. Viacom's marketing team is probably about ready to shoot their senior management at this point. - oogee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13keep arguing with yourself, I want to see how far to the right the left margin will go.
- BeatnikDude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Copyright is out of hand! 14 years, thats all we need. Think of progress, think of culture.
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'd like to see them taken to court and get eaten alive, but then I know that their lawyers might just get them out of it somehow and still leave us screwed.
Well, it'll be nice when Viacom doesn't exist anymore because they'll have spent millions upon millions of dollars trying to stick it to the little guys, who are poor as hell. - renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Buried for pointing out that he pointed out that it was a reference
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11@Sacherjj:
Compiler error: expecting ';' before 'ptr2' - PhairOh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I believe you are thinking of Chani :)
- raymore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10But Viacom still does not own the clip. Only rights to use the clip.
- RodeoRobot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think Chaney is that character from Dune. The one with the blue within blue eyes.
- freaktheclown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions." ... and ... "You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service."
Basically you retain all rights but you allow people to distribute your videos "through the functionality of the Website," which I'm assuming means through the embed codes and whatnot that are provided. - Punisher2K, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Give them a buck?
- Kyderdog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Cause you know George Lucus wouldn't sue for the use of the StarWars references....
- wevegotthejazz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7here's the only copy of the clip from Web 2.0 that Knight posted on YouTube I was able to find (excuse the wmv format)
http://politicalsoup.tv/rockinghamradio/chrisknightvsviacom.wmv
I hate to play devil advocate on the side of Viacom, but they didn't actually play Knight's entire video on the show but very short few second clips of it, which is technically covered under "Fair Use", a right that free speech activists have been vigorously defending for years. Although I think Viacom is completely ridiculous and out of control with their attempt to police copyright violation on the Internet, I don't think there's any legal basis for saying Viacom infringed his copyrighted work with this. - hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's not so cut and dried. Here's the relevant part of the agreement you mention:
"However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service."
According to the terms, the license allows YouTube or its transferee licensed use of the video "in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business." The license is transferable, but the remainder of the provision looks more like YouTube is demanding the license for use in promotion of YouTube, not for resale, as if YouTube were some kind of amateur video brokerage house. Thus, it's not clear to me that a sale of the license to Viacom would be a use "in connection with . . . YouTube's business" within the meaning of this provision. (The part about "successors and affiliates" almost certainly doesn't apply to Viacom.)
Further, just because you grant a license for YouTube or its transferees to use/reproduce/etc the work doesn't mean you give up your copyright in the work. The original author's copyright persists; it isn't given to YouTube or sold to Viacom. YouTube is just given permission to make use of the work for the specified purposes and may assign that right (if that assignment is part of YouTube's "business").
You're also overlooking the possibility that this provision may not be enforceable because it may be unconscionable. It may be unconscionable if it means that the uploader, by posting a video, essentially gives YouTube free content to sell to anyone it wants, with no recourse or royalty to the author. That's no slam dunk, but it's a possibility.
The "new stuff" in the clip added by Viacom is the only part in which the original author wouldn't have a copyright, and if the author's posting of Viacom's version is done for comment, or as news, or according to another fair use purpose, then Viacom lacks a valid basis for a DMCA take-down even if it purchased a license in the video. - Desolite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7more like, so basically viacom likes entrapment.
here, sell these drugs so we can bust you for it later... - mrmatchgame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What is Viacom's problem, You big cry baby!
- JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7isnt viacom wayy too big for google to just "buy out"?
- manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I see this copyright fiasco as a problem with the disconnect with the law and business. Although the law and precedent may indicate that you have a winning lawsuit, it doesn't always mean a lawsuit is in your clients best business interest. This is something not taught in core curriculum law school. The decision to sue or not often depends on whether your client can afford the cost. Thus, you have companies suing their customers.
I would never, once I'm an attorney, recommend any of my clients to sue their customer base without first consulting with a PR firm. This way the client can get the bigger picture before just pulling the trigger. It makes no sense to take money from profits, to sue a potential customer. This is especially true for electronic media.
The better way for Viacom to handle this is too provide the content with commercials and advertising included. I think that this is a fair trade. The public gets to see what they want and Viacom makes a bundle from increased advertising profits. The hard part is being customer friendly. For example, if Viacom sees their content on a blog, rather than sending a threatening letter, it would send a revised clip with advertisements included. Problem solved. - hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Arguably, they violated the provision of the DMCA prohibiting bad faith take-down notices.
- AdmiralKarelia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You realize that Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, MTV, Nickelodeon, as well as half of the channels on cable TV, right? Google's a big fish, but not that big.
- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6int* ptr1 -> renegadeafk
int** ptr2 -> Scr4tchFury
int*** ptr3 -> pw378
char *str = "Why doesn't Google just leverage buy out Viacom and dismantle it like the Gecko would?" - dasbacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you read the youtube terms of service it says the following
"However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels."
from what i understand, once you upload a video to youtube they have the power to sell it to viacom without permission. you gave youtube this right after you checked the "i agree to terms of service" upon registration. - jhnshft, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Very good point. They are living in the past. The '80s are here and they are going to live forever.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So I take it web junk 2.0 will be cancelled? Surely they can't be using clips just because they are on the internet.
- abhiroop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think that Martha Stewarts comment is really good. I've gotten so tired of MTV. Before I would watch it to get ideas for new music to listen to and buy. Now with all the crap on it in addition to playing the same pop/rnb song all day long its a real drag :(
- SimianSamurai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And notice that it does not say anything about allowing your clips to be published on any medium other than YouTube, so Viacom really is breaking the rules
- Dokkodo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4MTV
1. a game show network.
2. a network where Diana Ross bouncing Lil' Kim's bare titty is great entertainment but a flash of Janet Jackson's nipple ring is a horrifying “accident.”
They really need to change the use of 'M'tv, supposedly representing music, to mediocre. - nkassi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They are worth less than 1/4 of google. THe question is, what is the value of viacom to google?? Nothing, A) Google isn't a content produce, B) Viacom doesn't produce anything of quality anymore, they would be a useless aquisition.
- sadjoker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4nerdy nerdy!
- bunnysl4y3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well obviously, Viacom thinks it owns YouTube.
- Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Typical sociopathic attitude by a large organisation. Viascum and other companies think they can bully people around yet remain immune from prosecution themselves.
- nkassi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That still much less then what Google is valued.
- Scr4tchFury, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Buried for pointing out that it was a reference.
- slonrgjon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4bring back beavis and butthead!
- AdmiralKarelia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Please disregard this message, some punk coworker posted for me.
- hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think you are right that Viacom's use of the original video isn't infringement, but I think that is so because of fair use considerations rather than a transfer of license. Viacom (from what I understand) added significant amounts of commentary on top of the original video, which, even despite the commercial use by Viacom, probably makes it fair use.
Similarly, the author's repost of Viacom's version is probably fair use as well. The author can argue he posted it as part of commentary on the situation, or as a kind of news reporting (a weaker argument). I think the fact that he was the original author probably also weighs on the side of fair use, as well, though I confess I'm unaware of a similar case where that was a factor in fair use analysis. In any case, I think it's a close enough question to make the take-down notice look foolish.
(Meant to make this all one post, sorry) - abhiroop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As posted above I was looking for this relevant information. So basically according to the agreement:
"by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business"
So assuming that Viacom is one of its affiliates (which I doubt would be that hard to prove) Youtube has giving Viacom the ability to reproduce the clip. Viacom isn't claiming to OWN the clip, and neither is Youtube. I'm not sure if it says anywhere but perhaps Viacom mentioned who the original creator of the clip was in their show. So, it seems that by taking the clip from Youtube, Viacom has done nothing illegal.
Next is the re-upload onto Youtube. This seems to be copyright infringement since he has taken footage from the TV (regardless of its content) and put it on YouTube. Lets say I took that clip from VH-1 and put it on youtube, wouldn't it be illegal?
What you say about unconscionability is fair, but its quite plain that the whole point of this clause is so that youtube can sell the video or at least distribute it. Lets use this scenario as an example.
Universal makes a movie. MTV plays a clip of the movie on their show. Then someone takes that MTV clip and puts it on youtube (lets say Universal), wouldn't that be illegal? I know this doesn't make so much sense, but I think it illustrates the main issue here is that the guy who made the video had no right to repost the VH-1 clip. - jonr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe people should post disclaimer on their videos. "This video is for personal use only, by displaying it, YouTube accecpts that it will not licence, sub-licence, sell or rent the video without permission of the owner"...
- RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hypocrite! Stop changing the laws of spelling while calling other people out on changing laws!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 127 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