What is Digg?151 Comments
- ligyron, on 05/27/2008, -6/+142***** VIACOM
- NecroSexy, on 05/27/2008, -8/+95Cue the obligatory "***** VIACOM" in 5, 4, 3...
- dantenhickville, on 05/27/2008, -9/+89I think I'll quit watching cbs, mtv, and nick. Sampling isn't copyright infringement. YouTube does take action when copyright holders complain that's why all Prince songs have no sound. Viacom is actually pissed because their partner Veoh sucks.
- Falldog, on 05/27/2008, -5/+62I don't think Steward, Colbert, or Gore care what people are watching their programs on YouTube. If anything it helps them a lot more than it hurts. Viacom is retarded.
- rpi22, on 05/27/2008, -1/+48Sampling is covered under "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use" from USC Title 17, Section 107.
RIAA's worst nightmare;
http://infringed.blogspot.com/2008/05/riaas-worst- ... - PhillAholic, on 05/27/2008, -4/+50Viacom is ***** stupid. Most of the content I watched from Viacom on youtube were clips, not completely shows. Not a single video I ever watched stopped me from watching their channels on cable that I already pay for. In fact, I started watching several tv shows again, because of how funny some of their clips are. They'll pay millions for TV commercials every year, but when someone uploads a sample on the internet, costing them nothing they sue over it? It's free advertising! One of the other reasons I watch Comedy Central is because of South Park, but I can wait for it to be on SouthParkStudios if need be.
- wannapiece, on 05/27/2008, -2/+48"A $1 billion copyright infringement" not 241
- alx1507, on 05/27/2008, -1/+35The Pirate Bay's youtube-like service will hopefully launch soon (its rumored). So they can try to take away content from youtube. But they cant ***** touch TPB.
So go ***** yourself Viacom, you can't beat the internet. - WellDigga, on 05/27/2008, -5/+38If Viacom win, we may see the collapse of one of the pillars of the Internet. The last 10+ years may go down in history as the years the Internet was truly open and free.
- wannapiece, on 05/27/2008, -2/+29I bet over half of the Viacom employees have watch these same videos
- BlackJackJester, on 05/27/2008, -3/+27What humongous douche bags. They get unprecedented exposure on the internet at no cost to them, almost surely driving up DVD sales and TV viewers, and they bitch about it. ***** that, I'm going to go torrent every episode of south park now.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/27/2008, -4/+25HAPPY NEW YEA..errr...
- DeFex, on 05/27/2008, -1/+21Anyone who is watching MTV is already too retarded to read what you just wrote.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -1/+16***** THEM TOO
- wannapiece, on 05/27/2008, -0/+13"A $1 billion copyright infringement"
Evidently the poster had a brain fart? - RC212V, on 05/27/2008, -1/+14I'm actually glad Viacom is going after Google. Google has more than enough money to fight this battle tooth and nail and put an end to some of this copyright nonsense once and for all. If Viacom had chosen a weaker opponent they might have been persuaded to capitulate rather than spend big money on legal fees to fight their case. Let Viacom try to sue Google and fail spectacularly. It will be a victory for all of the little guys who wouldn't have been able to fight back.
- Antimatter3009, on 05/27/2008, -0/+121) Making a profit off of a sample is different than doing it without compensation.
2) It doesn't really matter, because it's not YouTube's responsibility to police the content posted by users. They are legally obligated to honor DMCA takedown requests, which they do all the time, but they are not obligated to prevent any copyrighted material from making it online. Unless YouTube is actively encouraging infringement (they are not), I don't see how this case is going anywhere. - zizzy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+12They should call it Baywatch.
- digitalhair, on 05/27/2008, -1/+12all technicalities aside, Viacom should be thanking YouTube for driving up Comedy Central's viewership by providing free, high-traffic advertising for its shows. I actually started Tivo'ing the Daily Show and the Colbert report because I enjoyed the short clips so much.
In fact, I find Viacom's abrupt pulldown of its easily accessible youtube clips incredibly offensive given the important political content, news clips, and analysis ("important" because you won't find any coverage of it on the major news networks) that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were covering at a time when the information these shows were bringing to the public might have served its viewership the most:
1. right before the political primaries
2. during the writers strike which, as you may recall, might never have taken place had Viacom not made the absurd assertion that it didn't have to pay its talented writers royalties out of the money made from showing their content online because it "was not a significant source of revenue." *****.
Forgive me for being a little suspicious of Murray Rothstein AKA Sumner Redstone, but I perceive that there is a covert and disingenuous political motivation for this lawsuit because of the recent pattern of legal attacks on Google/Youtube that seek to limit the unprecedented freedom of information and democratic exchange of ideas that its services are clearly facilitating. Why would they have waited so long to send Google the takedown notices if they were losing money every day (instead of the more likely scenario, MAKING money)?
Joe Lieberman has recently been trying to force Youtube to take down videos that are critical of Israel by claiming that Youtube is a mouthpiece for islamic extremism... and you know how much corporations and politicians like to prey on our fears and appeal to our patriotic nationalism --by calling dissenters unpatriotic-- when they are trying to win our consent... - kanabiis, on 05/27/2008, -1/+10Truth is, the internet scares these people to death.
Yes, the lawsuit is over the content, and rightfully Viacom should request their material to be pulled from Youtube when it is found.
Yes, Google should remove it after its proven to be owned by someone else. (which as far as I know they do)
But the real motivation behind this lawsuit is to shut down a competitor. Youtube is a competitor to cable television, as is the greater internet on the whole. People are sharing news, information, and entertainment with each other and the companies who have invested billions in dollars and man hours to insure that your eyes are on them are loosing out on viewers.
The fact that people watch Jon Stewart on the intertubes and not when Viacom says you can makes the executives who make promises to the people that provide them the revenue streams they rely on very angry. Your eyes on Comedy Central at 10 PM pays his paycheck, not your eyes on the computer screen watching a copy of it. Worse yet, what if your watching something completely different, something they did not produce or distribute, they make ZERO from that.
This is nothing new, the old media companies are trying everything they can to stifle the internet, and squash the competition. They have found that the most effective way is the legal and legislative tactics. Since it seems both the courts and our politicians are easily purchased. - atish505, on 05/27/2008, -3/+11Screw VIACOM. Long Live Yout Tube. I think we should organize a mass call in and mail in campaign so that people's voice be heard.
- nstlgc, on 05/27/2008, -2/+101.49 billion views were later traced back to Mr Gore's residence.
- Elderon, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7How will this work? Youtube stores the files on their own servers. The only reason TPB is still around is because in Sweden it is not illegal to point to copyrighted works as long as they are not stored on your own servers. For a youtube-like TPB site to function it's either gonna be a mishmash of links to other peoples servers which I think would suck, or they are gonna have to store the information on their own servers, in which case I don't think they can hide behind Swedens interpretation of copyright law.
- DelayedEraser, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8i don't think it's right... article only says $1 billion
- Pstmann, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8"and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth"—that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times."
Holy crap, I didn't know there were that many people with internet connections in the whole world let alone that many people who wanted to watch this. - vbullinger, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9Viacom is one of the biggest contributors to whose campaign?
That's right, John McCain's: http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/owners/mediamone ... (search for "within a week")
McCain didn't write that legislation: it was given to him by the corrupt people with which he deals. Like people in the CFR, for example. - slantyeyed, on 05/27/2008, -3/+9i wonder what would youtube be like if people stopped posting copyright'ed material?
- nstlgc, on 05/27/2008, -2/+8Well played, sir. Well played.
- rentmitchum, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Hell if anything Colbert loves everything about the current internet. It's surely helped his career, our series of tubes has spread his popularity faster than any celebrity in my recent memory.
- slantyeyed, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6MTV doesn't play music anymore, it's just TV shows.
- TriZz, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5Viacom won't win. I believe it's the DMCA that keeps websites from not being liable for content it's users post (so long as copyrighted material is taken down upon complaints in a reasonable fashion). The lawsuit has no legs (kinda like that kid from Can't Hardly Wait).
- dingleberry, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5Excuse me your honor, yooouuuuttthhhssss.
- Alegoo92, on 05/27/2008, -1/+6Yeah.. I think it's good that Google bought Youtube, so that they can protect it from the juggernaut ***** like Viacom.
- Kyrgizion, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6Apparently the concept of (free!) publicity is completely lost on some people...
- deizel, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Web 'negative'-point-O
- Burn, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Was the DMCA even around for the RIAA vs Napster case?
- Lunarbunny, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5Buried as inaccurate, $1 billion is still a *****, you don't have to go spicing it up just to frontpage it.
- rpi22, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4As long as it is not done for profit, Fair Use probably covers "sampling"
- MeatyMcBeef, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html
Here's a list of who owns what in the media. - Llanowar, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4Poster just thought $241 billion would get it to front page faster.
Most people don't read the article and just go "OMFG WTF DUGG" - l815, on 05/27/2008, -5/+8First off, who watches mtv now a days anyway ...
Anyway, how is viewing a 'clip' of a tv show any different than watching it on tv. You pay for internet, you pay for cable. The money might not directly go to the company, then it's the companies job to mend around it's consumers.
Also, watching clips is nothing compared to watching the high quality version. If the show is good enough, there are other means of better quality than a few minutes worth of horrible pixels.
It's the exact same thing with music. Why buy a whole cd when you can buy 1 song online and pay a fair amount. It's viacoms fault not googles. This is where the music industry has learned to mend with the consumers and the viacom being ignorant hungry pigs.
It's like witnessing a Microsoft employee talking about how evil Linux is as a competitor, later to find out he uses it regularly...
Can you sue a news channel for filming real live events? (and i mean filming not broadcasting) - nkoi, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3viacom dosent care what their clients think, they want money and they do anything to bring in a few more cents.
- Makisupa, on 05/27/2008, -0/+317 U.S.C. 107 is the fair use section, which may include sampling after applying Harper, Acuff-Rose, Suntrust Bank, etc. Further, 17 U.S.C. 106 and Bridgeport v. Dimension cover musical sampling, not 107.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4The Digital Millennium Copyright Act needs to be repealed and it's authors, lobbyists and enablers should be jailed.
- leefnaspleaf, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3I don't see why anyone would digg this comment down unless they just didn't get it.
- duncanspumpkin, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4"yout" ????
- MeatyMcBeef, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Good point unless you create a plugin that functions as a torrent streaming program. Then as long as there are seeders you can stream the media. Ideally you'd have the program run in the background and after watching a clip, in turn for watching it you have to seed for half and hour or so, for short clips the bandwidth usage would be nominal.
- MeatyMcBeef, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Good Question. A company called RiffTrax(remember MST3K anyone?) "samples" clips of popular films sometimes 4-5 minutes long with their commentary overlaid on the video. I haven't seen them run into problems with this yet and I don't think they've cut a deal with any studios.
Does anyone have verifiable information on the difference between sampling and infringing? - Skod, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Many of the groups I listen to aren't with RIAA, and even if some money does go towards them, you're still sending money the artist's way.
- Skod, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Radio isn't much better buddy. Between clear channel, and the lack of diversity in programming, it's not not worth anybodies time. Go to the record store, buy CDs and play them in your car, that's what is truly enjoyable.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is