View Full Version : Youtube is gonna suck now
MMike
03-13-2007, 11:48 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/03/13/viacomsuesyoutubw.html
Aww come on man....The whole fun of youtube is being able to find that "Hey did you see that sketch on....". Frickin Viacom. It's a new world now. Ya made your money on it. Move on.
Westy
03-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Oh no. We will miss out on threads with no text and a single Youtube link. My life is no longer worth living.
binary visions
03-13-2007, 12:00 PM
Funny part is that I think it'd be far easier for companies to profit from a clip being aired on a place like YouTube. If you have no option to get on YouTube to look at something, trolling the Bittorrent or Gnutella networks is the next best option, and there are no controls over that.
If these companies worked with YouTube and developed ways to tag their copyrighted videos, it might lead to a more mainstream ways of sharing profits. YouTube would benefit from increased traffic, and Viacom would benefit from a piece of the advertising revenue or some kind of royalty payment. These attempts to lock down or destroy methods for getting copyrighted media are fruitless. Working within the medium is a better option. Hell, look at how popular iTunes is? Take a familiar medium, tag a reasonable price onto it, and boom - people are lining up. It's helped by the popularity of the iPod, of course, but it's still a successful venture.
But hey, what the hell do I know?
I Are Baboon
03-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Oh no. We will miss out on threads with no text and a single Youtube link. My life is no longer worth living.
God damn I hate those threads, and I never click the links.
sugarbushrider1
03-13-2007, 12:26 PM
not really related but my 14 year old brother's band is on youtube... they're pretty damn good for being so young, they played last weekend at the Webster in Hartford, CT... band's name is 12SR if anyone's seen it
jimmydean
03-13-2007, 12:52 PM
There have been some solid marketing jobs done through youtube. I agree with BV in the exposure being worth a lot more the what they might lose in revenue for a 4 minute clip of a show.
It's Napster all over again.
sanjuro
03-13-2007, 01:00 PM
There have been some solid marketing jobs done through youtube. I agree with BV in the exposure being worth a lot more the what they might lose in revenue for a 4 minute clip of a show.
It's Napster all over again.
I think it starts with a grainy 3 minute video and in a couple of years it becomes a HD quality download of an entire program in 10 seconds.
I don't want to be Lars Ulrich, but Viacom does own the rights to these shows, and I respect their desire to protect them.
Youtube didn't produce these programs so why should they be able to show them for free.
MMike
03-13-2007, 01:33 PM
But youtube didn't post them. They are just providing the location.
The only reason they are suing is because youtube and google have gobs of money. I bet google's lawyers are better.
binary visions
03-13-2007, 01:45 PM
I don't want to be Lars Ulrich, but Viacom does own the rights to these shows, and I respect their desire to protect them.
Youtube didn't produce these programs so why should they be able to show them for free.
That's my point - of course Viacom owns the rights and should be profiting from having them displayed. I just think they'd profit a hell of a lot more by striking a deal with YouTube than by trying to get everything just ripped off the site. Industry models need to change. Information and media is too easy to pass around now, and rather than trying to restrict the flow of it - which is virtually impossible - I think the industry needs to adapt and try to benefit from it.
Not a single viewer would notice or care if their files were tagged as Viacom property and a piece of YouTube's ad revenue went to Viacom. Hits are being driven to YouTube, part of that goes to Viacom, the users see it as transparent... Everyone wins. When higher quality media is available on a place like YouTube, then perhaps they need to move to an iTunes-like model of a small charge for each item.
jimmydean
03-13-2007, 02:21 PM
That's my point - of course Viacom owns the rights and should be profiting from having them displayed. I just think they'd profit a hell of a lot more by striking a deal with YouTube than by trying to get everything just ripped off the site. Industry models need to change. Information and media is too easy to pass around now, and rather than trying to restrict the flow of it - which is virtually impossible - I think the industry needs to adapt and try to benefit from it.
Not a single viewer would notice or care if their files were tagged as Viacom property and a piece of YouTube's ad revenue went to Viacom. Hits are being driven to YouTube, part of that goes to Viacom, the users see it as transparent... Everyone wins. When higher quality media is available on a place like YouTube, then perhaps they need to move to an iTunes-like model of a small charge for each item.
That was my point. Some bands that embraced Napster made a lot of money off it. Hell, you could buy Napster hats and shirts from the Offspring's website.
Look at what ABC does with Lost. They tack on a commercial a couple times in a few choice breakpoints and everyone is happy. If Viacom associates a clip on YouTube with another show, or an advertisement, then they get better exposure rather than the backlash from pulling stuff people want to see.
This lawsuit will be used as leverage in contract negotiations to set the balance of profit sharing.
That is all.
binary visions
03-13-2007, 02:57 PM
BV is wise
They should hire me as a consultant and pay me $300/hour to make decisions for them.
Secret Squirrel
03-13-2007, 05:48 PM
They should hire me as a consultant and pay me $300/hour to make decisions for them.
Hmmm....I was going to lowball myself at around 225 for the advice that you gave...now I think I'll go up to 275. They'll for sure want to hear it from me...sucker!!!
binary visions
03-13-2007, 07:28 PM
Hmmm....I was going to lowball myself at around 225 for the advice that you gave...now I think I'll go up to 275. They'll for sure want to hear it from me...sucker!!!
Pssh. You don't have the resume for it. I have three certifications and a Master's in Blindingly Obvious Deductions.
Secret Squirrel
03-13-2007, 07:46 PM
Pssh. You don't have the resume for it. I have three certifications and a Master's in Blindingly Obvious Deductions.
Heh...masters in bod...:pirate2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.