Viacom is watching you watch YouTube videos...

[Set]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... rs-yo.html
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/co ... youtube-us

Oh how utterly stupid.

[Spongy]

What in the hell... Can't companies understand that when it comes to the internet, copyright infringement and whatnot is /unavoidable/?

[Baphnedia]

Well, no, they can't. Two problems with this:

1) It allows Viacom to LATER ask for personal contact information to two types of users (and I almost guarantee that they will do this): Those who repeatedly upload infringing material, and those who repeatedly watch infringing material and do not report it for the purpose of subpoenas (kinda like the RIAA, suing grandmothers and seven year olds). The goal, if you ask me? Using the US Justice System as a profit center.

2) The uploading of copyrighted material to youtube would interfere with the 'on demand' programming that the cable companies are pushing, because the content can be viewed without advertisements in somewhat decent quality. So, in their mind, they're losing money. Perhaps the funniest thing is that it's not worth even watching America's Greatest Dog (a reality/American Idol show) because they're running out of ideas.

It's rather petty, if you ask me - but there may be other parts played in all of this. Viacom may be liable to the stations themselves (and the advertisers who pay those stations), for ensuring that whomever sees the programming sees the ads (with exception to the DVD box sets of your favorite shows).

[RedEye]

There is another thing happening here. Frequently the artist whose work is uploaded is not compensated for his/her work.

As for Viacom et al; suing Grandmothers and seven year olds, usually those cases are tossed out of court because there is no way to prove intent to defraud. Of course, the media people don't want it to go to court, and try to "settle" out of the legal arena.

And remember, there's a Recession happening, and that includes Viacom as much as you and me.

What does raise a question is "what about the data on non-Viacom programming?" Will Viacom attempt to entail that as well? IMHO, this whole thing will be reversed at the Appelate level.
There's also the possibility that Viacom is looking to acquire Google/You Tube and sees this as a way to do it, should Google/You Tube not be able to pay the eventual damages (if there are any). Something here smells...

[Spongy]

I didn't really use YouTube for watching TV shows anyway, the quality is much too low. I have other sources for that.

But if Viacom were to acquire youtube...oh dear.

[Baphnedia]

If Viacom were to acquire Google... oh dear!

[Spongy]

That too. Erm, but aren't Google and Youtube owned by Google?

[Just a Username]

That too. Erm, but aren't Google and Youtube owned by Google?

Yeah, it is only a matter of time before they try to make the courts show what people are searching for on Google. Where art thou privacy?

[Howlitzer]

the internet kinda killed privacy...or at least has doomed it from the start.

If it's ever touched a computer, chances are somebody will find a way to access it. How well they can connect the dots they find, is really the fault of the person who left them behind in the first place.

That's why all-out paranoia is, in a way, a very good thing at times if you're trying to maintain any semblance of anonymity or privacy on the Internet. You leave little breadcrumbs behind all the time, it's up to you to make sure they don't form enough of a trail for some creep....or some over-zealous corporation...to follow back to you.

(speaks from the experience of having a certain creep Google his name and cause all-out chaos by harassing him both in person and online...and having to clean up the mess afterwards.)

Buuut eventually not even that will be possible if these types of people have anything to do with it. :/

[Kaebora]

If Viacom were to acquire Google... oh dear!

If that happened, I'd propose a worldwide boycott against Viacom.

[RedEye]

If Viacom were to acquire Google... oh dear!

If that happened, I'd propose a worldwide boycott against Viacom.

AND: All of Viacom's subsidiaries. It's like an octopus, y'know.

[Scott Gardener]

There's a simpler explanation; they're suing because they CAN. If you're allowed to sue willy-nilly over any and every possible cause, then well-funded companies who can afford legal teams can basically hunt and fish for lawsuits. One need only win a few to pay for the costs of the lost cases. Being a plaintiff can be a financially rewarding career, and there are documented cases of people who sue for a living, whom other members of their own family will avoid.

I'd like to see a "random lawsuit generator" that pairs names we frequently see in the news suing or being sued. "X1 vs. X2," Where Xy = the following:

Apple, Microsoft, the RIAA, the Beatles, a kid and her grandmother, the SCO group, Motorola, Google, everyone on the Internet, (etc.)

Imagine clicking a button: "The RIAA vs. Microsoft." I bet you that will be a real case, sooner or later. It'll probably have something to do with the failing of the .WMA format now that more online music stores are selling mp3s; they'll blame Microsoft for making the format not licensed properly or something, with hopes of squeezing "royalty moneys" owed to "their artists" that the musicians will never see, because it'll all go to the lawyers and the RIAA administrators.

[MattSullivan]

Viacom has a right to protect its copyrights. Just because they're a big company doesn't mean they're evil for wanting to make money off the things they create.

[Set]

Viacom has a right to protect its copyrights. Just because they're a big company doesn't mean they're eveil for wanting to make money off the things they create.

No, they're evil because they canceled Invader Zim, f*** up Neopets, won't pay their writers, demanded copies of EVERY VIDEO EVER UPLOADED regardless of whether it contained content they owned or not, and tried to weasel Google's source code out of a so-called "copyright infringement" lawsuit.

Here's a list of s*** they own. As much as it pains me to say it... *mourns the loss of Dreamworks* Avoid it like the plague.

BET
BET J
ATOMFILMS
ADDICTINGGAMES
CMT
COMEDY CENTRAL
GAMETRAILERS
HARMONIX
LOGO
MTV
MTV2
MTVN INTERNATIONAL
MTVU
MTV TR3S
NEOPETS
NICKELODEON - NICK JR.
NICK AT NITE
NOGGIN
PARENTSCONNECT
QUIZILLA
RHAPSODY
SHOCKWAVE
SPIKE TV
THE N
TV LAND
VH1
VH1 CLASSIC
VH1 SOUL
VIRTUAL WORLDS
XFIRE
PARAMOUNT PICTURES
DREAMWORKS STUDIOS
PARAMOUNT VANTAGE
MTV FILMS
NICKELODEON MOVIES
HOME ENTERTAINMENT

[lycan94]

Lord save us all!

[Kaebora]

Viacom's only saving grace is that they do not sue fan-made videos that use the copyright namesakes of Viacom, if it is 100% non-profit. Various Star Trek fan flicks are circulated for free without contest due to this declaration. So at least we wont get sued for dressing up as a Klingon and showboating it on You Tube. However, showing episodes made by Paramont will not a no-no.

Its the obtaining of personal info that I object to.

[MattSullivan]

No, they're evil because they canceled Invader Zim

No, a Nickelodeon executive canceled Zim, not Viacom. A company exists to make money, and if the show isn't getting ratings or enough commercial sponsors it doesn't matter how cool the show is, it's gonna get canceled.

won't pay their writers

How do you know this? Are you a writer for Viacom?

Here's a list of s*** they own

Oh yeah. I forgot. OWNING businesses automatically makes you evil. How silly of me to forget that.

demanded copies of EVERY VIDEO EVER UPLOADED regardless of whether it contained content they owned or not

90% of youtube videos posted are fan videos, usually bad music videos or whatever, and they often contain studio content. If you don't think they have a right to seek out and remove the material that they have produced, then wait until YOU make something and someone else posts it without your permission.

I'm always irked by the anti-corporation attitude here. And a lot of people believe it until they get a REAL job that pays them like an adult, in one of these so-called "evil" companies. Boo-Hoo! Viacom is trying to protect its investments! We're broke-a**, lethargic shmucks who don't have the cash to pay for anything, so we whine when our "free" videos are taken away from us.

I have the same attitude about software pirates. Keep wanting nothing but free stuff and the companies that make the coolest software go out of business. Then we'll see who whines the most. Not to mention pirated software crashes 98% of the time and is fraught with glitches.

[Set]

won't pay their writers

How do you know this? Are you a writer for Viacom?

Are you seriously telling me you don't remember the writer's strike? That was part of the cause of the whole thing.

Oh yeah. I forgot. OWNING businesses automatically makes you evil. How silly of me to forget that.

Touchy, touchy. I never said they were evil for owning something. I said they were evil for the things they did.

90% of youtube videos posted are fan videos, usually bad music videos or whatever, and they often contain studio content. If you don't think they have a right to seek out and remove the material that they have produced, then wait until YOU make something and someone else posts it without your permission.

Did you even read my post? In case you didn't, here's a refresher.

demanded copies of EVERY VIDEO EVER UPLOADED regardless of whether it contained content they owned or not

And frankly, as long as they don't blatantly rip me off and aren't making money off of it, I don't give a s*** what they do with it.

[MattSullivan]

Are you seriously telling me you don't remember the writer's strike? That was part of the cause of the whole thing.

I remember it. It delayed my new animation job by three months. And it wasn't Viacom alone who was responsible. All the studios were reluctant to pay writers for "new media", something that hadn't been contracted to the writers guild ( despite many attempts )

[Silent Hunter]

Sorry to piss on your parade here but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8KhoMQZyxY

A boycott will do jack s***. You would have to stop the large amount of casual users to have an affect. You know, the ones who do not use the internet often, those who will happily buy DVD's, those who do not see the problem.

So are you going to keep leading your holy boycott crusade?

[Set]

I have nothing better to do. And anyway, I'm not the one who started said "crusade", anyhow.

...Seriously, guys, it doesn't pay to f*** with fandom. Ask Livejournal.

[Silent Hunter]

You underestimate what a corporation can possibly do. I doubt it will go that far but they are not weak.

Oh and keep going on your holy crusade of nothing that will lead..to....nothing..oh.

I remember the last time we had such a big scare? Oh yes! Orphan Works bill. One article that was blown out of proportion had some of this forum and half of DA s*** themselves when the bill was nothing like what was said.

[Set]

The whowhatnow? And how exactly am I "underestimating" them?

Why does it bother you so much, anyway? I'll do what I want to, and if you don't feel like joining me then go read a book or something.

[Silent Hunter]

I am allowed to have a view on this no? Its a dicussion fourm you know. All views are accepted within reason and my view was simply that it was a pointless task for the reasons stated.

[Set]

It isn't your view I have a problem with, it's that you started harping on me for mine. So you don't think it'll do anything. Okay. Fine. You didn't have to break out the attitude to state that.