What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
141 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+147Step 6- Find a better hobby.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+139YouTube could pull every one of those videos... and the users would probably just re-upload them the next day.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+92No MTV or BET?
I think Google did us a favor. - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+69step 1, configure new anonymous proxy
step 2, configure new temp email address
step 3, create new youtube account
step 4, re-upload movie file
step 5, wait till content is removed; goto step one. - MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -5/+62At that point, YouTube would probably discover that their traffic will drop by 75% or more.
- Absinthminded64, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60MTV & BET?!?!?! Those are still around? Who cares if they're removed!? Viawho?
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Yeah, but no more Daily Show or Colbert clips either.
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35nobody wants to watch Viacom's crap anyway.
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Content owner you mean.
- Mabu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29If every video that was ever produced by MTV suddenly disappeared, would anybody with any taste ever notice?
- Trenton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2010,000 or 100,000? O.o
- davenaff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The real question is if this is a Viacom negotiating tactic. If it isn't Viacom will be suing Google/YouTube for infringement in short order.
- 8177, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Actually five significant figure.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Why? Because they need to give you free content?
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Nothing on Digg will get you dugg down quicker than stating or implying that content should be paid for. If you want to (gasp!) make MONEY from something that the public likes, you are inheriently evil. Once the public likes something, they thusly own it.
- isuisorisuaint, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17i hope, somehow, that the evolution of dance is viacom property.
- Flipsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10How about this, when youtube starts the whole 'sharing ad-profits' thing, have them delete all the videos, and re-uploaded by the owners (I.E. Viacom), that way both consumer and viacom can be happy, and we won't have 10 different users upload the same video (which is good for google, saves them server space).
- dragonmantank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@The Wallbanger
Why? Didn't they already reach an agreement regarding Comedy Central-based clips? I would assume that those that haven't had a previous agreement would be exempt. - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Exactly. Anyone smart in the business would recognize the value of free marketing. Do they really think these crummy bitrate videos compete with their actual product? Please...
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Stupid Diggers. Wait until your parents stop paying for everything and you'll quickly learn why people like to make money.
- cramd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I wonder why Viacom does not see these short, and funny (?) clips as nothing more then a commercial for their product. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise their programs were this is free for them. What do they lose? Directly they are not missing out on any money. I think they might be a little greedy seeing that google might be making money from these ads (clips) shown on youtube.
If I see a clip that I think is funny I might even watch their show. I am glad they are going to pull them so there is no risk that I will see something that might cause me to watch their programs. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15*****.
- pleve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Screw Viacom...
Youtube has changed the way we use video online and that pisses them off because they didn't think of something like that first. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I thought folks who own content want people to the see the content?
- gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14And this title proves that comma placement totally isn't important.
/sarcasm - keegan3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is soo stupid, these companies need to embrace YouTube and figure out how it can help them. To give an example of the marketing power of YouTube: a couple of weeks ago there was a YouTube clip on Digg from Extras where Patrick Stewart explains his new idea for a movie, where in ever situation he makes the cloths of the women involved fall off with his mind :) This was suck an awesome clip I HAD to see more, So I went out to BestBuy and picked up the DVD! It is now one of my favorite show! I have also been telling my friends about the show. All because of a 5 minute clip on YouTube :)
Wise up Viacom - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8you can watch 80% of the daily show from their own web page.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What a ridiculous analogy... I think you should think it through.
If all the music you play in your car was stored on your behalf by Toyota, but Toyota refused to remove from their systems any illegal music (and even facilitated the broadcast of the music to other car owners), then yes, Toyota could get sued too. But in this place called reality, there isn't such a setup for cars, so your analogy is just tripe. - JazonBladen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can we demand that Viacom pull down itself from television? Just a thought.
- methlp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Viacom already does have their own video clip website: www.ifilm.com. You can watch a lot of the MTV, MTV2, Comedy Central and Logo shows. It's a pretty good place to get your Daily Show and Colbert Report fix because they have all the clips from the night before usually by 2:00 AM PST or there abouts.
Colbert Report:
http://www.ifilm.com/show/17677
Daily Show:
http://www.ifilm.com/show/17676
I generally find the presentation better than YouTube, because I can watch the whole episode in one place. Rather than hunting for the clips one by one. - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5or, as a second choice, YouTube could write a check to Viacom for a billion dollars.
That would maybe work. - monergism, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9As a content creator and owner, yes, I want people to see my content but only by the terms I have agreed upon.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8GOOD. Google's smart enough to know not to put up with this crap. The smart thing would be to ride the lawsuit into eternity costing Viacom millions, billions if possible, to prove that they're not fooling around. This is what IBM did with the SCO case; other companies looking to sue will look at something like this and will say "jee, maybe it's not so bad, I can't afford to spend billions on this to _maybe_ get my way"
- markdr123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Actually five significant figure."
Math-owned! - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If a studio is being ass-backwards, then punish them by not buying or watching their stuff. If everyone did this, they'd soon listen to you."
well, thats just happened by default today - no longer will you have the MTV brandname being broadcast to millions of YouTube users each day. And its Viacom that just cut off the FREE advertising for that brand. - GuyHersh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn... I just went to watch a video on YouTube of the Colbert Report, and it came up and said:
"This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Viacom International Inc. because its content was used without permission"
Check for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/index?&session=gAJ9cQEoVQxlcnJvcl9maWVsZHNxAmNfX2J1aWx0aW5fXwpzZXQKcQNdhVJxBFUGZXJyb3JzcQVdcQZVh1RoaXMgdmlkZW8gaGFzIGJlZW4gcmVtb3ZlZCBhdCB0aGUgcmVxdWVzdCBvZiBjb3B5cmlnaHQgb3duZXIgVmlhY29tIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgSW5jLiBiZWNhdXNlIGl0cyBjb250ZW50IHdhcyB1c2VkIHdpdGhvdXQgcGVybWlzc2lvbnEHYVUIbWVzc2FnZXNxCF1xCXUu - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4but YouTube only allows 10 minute clips - which is perfect for advertising the TV shows you mention. The video quality isnt great - so if you like that clip, you'll more than likely buy the DVD or watch it on TV if its on.
and more importantly - the media companies dont need to worry about the infrastructure to deliver that content - Google/YouTube have taken care of it (and that infrastructure and bandwidth costs aint cheap - we're talking tens of millions of $$$ )
Overall , its a win-win situation for everyone - consumers, media companies and YouTube. Viacom just has its head stuck up its ass. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Flipsen...that is exaactly what companies would want to do. A few months ago when Comedy Central forced them to pull all clips from YouTube and then announced a deal to include videos, everyone on this site was confused. Of course, anyone with common sense was not. But that doesn't apply to 99% of Digg users.
NO network is going to make a deal that allows any random YouTube user to upload their content. It would be idiotic to. Any deal to work with YouTube will be preceded by a demand to remove all unauthorized content or else it would make no sense. You don't compete with 20 other videos of the same hing. - roguenine2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YEAH THATS A GREAT IDEA AND THEN THEY WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND GOOGLE CAN MAKE ALL THE TV SHOWS!! W00T!!! /sarcasm. dumbass.
- hartley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4my thoughts exactly.
screw viacom.
we need good indie tv. - dextroz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6well not if your terms and agreement are antiquated to current systems available for distribution. It's like the content owner saying, "IJ4 will be available only in BDs not HD-DVDs and anyone converting the movie from BD to HD-DVD will get sued." Well guess what, that law needs to be changed and such companies need to be fisted.
It's too bad that Sony got away freely from the rootkit. Corruption seems an all-time high in the US of A right now :-( - Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Youtube should just implement a system where people using a validated company account can claim a video as their own, or as using their content, and then just take the ad revenue generated by the user-uploaded video straight back into their account. Also a way that users can just say hey, this video I'm uploading belongs to this company or channel. That should then be validated by the company and accepted or rejected as their own. That way they don't even have to upload their videos, users will do it for them.
- TechCF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The tv and movie companies can't win this war, just as the record companies
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I guess Viacom is tired of all that free marketing that YouTube is doing for them...
Who do those Google bastards are? They think they can just go around exposing potential Viacom customers to new artists and new TV shows without demanding a huge marketing fee from Viacom? - whogotthegravy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not that smart... youtube gives artists so much free promo. Having a popular music video on there is a good thing for them.
It's okay though, the music recording/publishing/distribution industry has done this every time a new technology has emerged. - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2current Viacom market cap: $28 Billion
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=via
google market cap: $147 billion
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GOOG&hl=en - TwimA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As someone who actually works in the tv industry i'd like to comment a bit.
Making TV content in any form costs alot of money. It takes an extremely large amount of talent to first come up with a consept, then actually produce it and market/sell it. The people working in the industry are extremely talented at what they do, and as a surprise to probobly alot of diggers i can tell you that almost everyone who works in the TV industry have quite good technology skills and knowledge. (Since you pretty much have to understand the whole chain of communication between devices etc.)
Now, haven said that, i'd like to point out that when finally a "hit" tv-show is produced the production company owns the rights to this. That means they have the right to do pretty much anything they want with it. They can release it online if they wish, or they can choose not to. If they choose not to, even though you might view it as "their demise" it doesn't give you any rights to distribute it. (You MIGHT have rights to download it, depending on what country you live in, but when using for example BitTorrent you're also distributing if you're uploading.)
You make money of a series by selling it to other distributors. The distributors will then get money by sellings ads. Recently more and more "interactive" solutions to concepts have started to evolve, helping to create stronger brands. For example on LOST discussion forums that are advertised for discussing what's going on etc. Naturally advertisers (who are paying for the content in the end) will not want to advertise if people are not watching the show. And what is to be feared when something is freely available on the internet is that people will watch it from there instead of the TV. I mean, why would'nt they? They can download the latest episode aired in the US probobly a year before it airs in their local country. If they're a fan they'll naturally want to see the newest episode, but it is not as likely that they'll want to watch it from tv in their local country when it airs there later. Meaning less interested viewers, and less advertising mone, which ofcourse leads to that the distributor can't buy a show in the future.
Free advertising is a valid point. If something is available in small quantities on the net and pushes the net viewers to contact their local tv providers to buy the show, then great. But in these days it seems that everything on the internet is available in large quantities (the whole series).
A 300-700mb file these days is quickly downloaded and is so good quality that it can be compared to watch it from TVs. More and more consumers are also buying widescreen laptops, quite suitable for watching new shows.
What i want to say in the end is that the content owner has the rights to choose how people will be able to watch it. If that doesn't suit you then you're out of luck. It doesnt grant you any magic rights to do whatever you please. It takes money and talent to create, and when you do that professionaly you're expecting to get paid. And even if you disagree with the creators/owners view on how to get paid, you can't really do anything but boycott the product. Ie. now watch it. (no, you still don't have the rights to do whatever you want).
For Linux GNU advocates here, think what would happen if someone took a GPL project, made modifications, and distributed it as closed source not wanting to give anything back or the give out the code. You'd prolly be pissed, specially if you'd worked on the forked project yourself. That's how many TV ppl can feel at times.. Now i know that's nowhere the same thing, but that is how it can often feel. - mtwmike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The MTV brand has gone down in value a lot. MTV would want to keep the clips on Youtube so that bloggers can use them to promote their wack ass shows.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like how diggers will proclaim the US as capitalism at its best, land of the free and all that... But when a company *by its own choice* doesn't do what they want, they view it as bad. The whole basis of capitalism is that the businesses can do business how they see fit - if you, as a consumer, don't like it then you have the choice not to buy it and to buy something else. These businesses make big profit, so clearly some consumers are satisfied with it.
It's not your decision which format studios release onto. Your only decision is whether to buy it or not. (I'm not supporting Viacom here, I view youtube as a good ad for them) - Estaris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I stopped watching ifilm because I don't like their video viewing format, load time, nor their homepage. I remember trying to watch clips and have it commercials in it. Do they really think we watch them?
They are trying to get rid of their competition, short and simple.
Youtube has a better format and it is, or tries to, be formed by the public. Youtube was an open forum of many people from many backgrounds that people could submit their opinion.
I tend to look at digg video's now and do occasional searches for clips on Youtube. -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 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