-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Is this the end of You Tube?
- Thread starter ercjncpr
- Start date
Viacom must've never heard of United States federal law (47 U.S.C. ?230), which states service providers like youtube (or radio info) are not liable for content posted to their services by third parties. Its what would keep this board open, if I was to post music on here, or child porn pics. It isn't the job of the provider to seek these things out...however they are required to remove when notified, or are generally aware. This is what kept AOL, and free webhosts in business. Is Viacom gonna argue that youtube knows of each copyright video posted, when posted?
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm
Ofcoarse, one downfall for youtube might be, the supposed detection software they have, but only offer for companies they come to agreements with.
the end of you tube? I doubt it even though I think you may see some changes there. I believe right now if you are caught uploading a copyrighted clip I think you are given three chances before your account is suspended. If this is indeed the current policy, I wouldn't be surrpised to see it go to something like "only once, your out".
Whenever I read about one of the big guys going after You Tube such as Viacom, I wonder how many of the little ones have done the same thing such as getting clips removed.
A friend of mine uploaded an old commercial for Marlboro cigarettes only to have that removed at the request of Phillip Morris. I always though old commercials fell into "fair use".
And last year I remember hearing about the estate of late country singer Patsy Cline had a clip removed from You Tube showing a woman stomping on her grave, drunk singing "Crazy". As tasteless as that clip was, it was a home video and the fact that the family of Patsy Cline was able to remove the clip makes me wonder if any clip can be removed by anyone other than the person who made the clip.
Whenever I read about one of the big guys going after You Tube such as Viacom, I wonder how many of the little ones have done the same thing such as getting clips removed.
A friend of mine uploaded an old commercial for Marlboro cigarettes only to have that removed at the request of Phillip Morris. I always though old commercials fell into "fair use".
And last year I remember hearing about the estate of late country singer Patsy Cline had a clip removed from You Tube showing a woman stomping on her grave, drunk singing "Crazy". As tasteless as that clip was, it was a home video and the fact that the family of Patsy Cline was able to remove the clip makes me wonder if any clip can be removed by anyone other than the person who made the clip.
I'm guessing the only reason Viacom is doing all of this and not making any licencing agreements with Youtube (like NBC and Viacom's former property CBS) is because Viacom owns Youtube's direct competeter www.ifilm.com and they are also working on making Youtube style content available on their network websites. So it looks to me like they are trying to destroy the competition. It should be noted that part of the reason for Viacom's recent layoffs was so they could focus on their online content more.
How intelligent are these media groups? Don't they remember when they tried to shut Napster down. that failed miserably because yeah they left Napster as it was back then dead in the water but dozens of other sites just like it were created in its place. If Viacom shuts down Youtube, you know the same will result. they are spinning their wheels. Waste of time and money for them. But we're dealing with media corps who don't seem to be intelligent very often.
Brian Donegan said:
Napster was different. The RIAA didn't operate a free file sharing service.
Viacom owns a direct competetor which offers the same content that Youtube is being sued over in addition to allowing users to upload their own stuff in the same way Youtube does. And as for their remark of "not doing a good enough job of enforcing copyright rules" Youtube has been ripping Viacom content off their site constantly in addition to music videos that Viacom doesn't even own but just happens to have been recorded off one of their networks. People's home videos with no relation to Viacom content have also been ripped off the site due to copyright infringement complaints by Viacom. They're doing a kick ass job.
T
TightwadSquarepants
Guest
youtube.com isn't the only website that does this, obviously. The best example of a site that has copyrighted material on it would be retrojunk.com. They've got clips of old tv show intros from the 70's-90's, movie trailers and commercials. Do they pay for the rights to these or not? Something tells me they don't because registered users can upload clips to the site. I seriously doubt that even old Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley TV intros fall into public domain usage, though maybe they do. Anyone know about this and how it would impact something like retrojunk.com?
Solution: Why doesn't YouTube just add a :10 second ad at the beginning of each copyrighted music video, and pay Viacom (or whoever) for the right to stream it, which would keep it free for users. I don't get it - I think it's great to see all the videos and footage that isn't otherwise available (like old 80s music videos from MTV/VH1), international videos/concerts that this American could never otherwise see, etc. Most of this isn't being sold to the public by Viacom, so they'd rather just let it sit and collect dust in the vaults? Isn't Viacom (and others) able to obtain valuable data based on the # of people clicking on an old Tears For Fears video, etc.? Wouldn't it serve Viacom to work this out with YouTube/Google and keep the videos available to the public?
Media Maven in Michigan, USA
Media Maven in Michigan, USA
It better not go away. You can see so many old videos of things that aren't even relevent to today. Plus YouTube is not all copyrighted videos; personal videos can be uploaded as well.
Viacom shouldn't say anything. They have done nothing for TVLand and Nick @ Nite, it takes a site like YouTube to make up for that.
Viacom shouldn't say anything. They have done nothing for TVLand and Nick @ Nite, it takes a site like YouTube to make up for that.
We don't need more ads.
As it stands now, if somebody is banned from Youtube they can just sign up with a new username and upload the same videos. The so-called infringed content will always be up there, just with constantly changing usernames.
As it stands now, if somebody is banned from Youtube they can just sign up with a new username and upload the same videos. The so-called infringed content will always be up there, just with constantly changing usernames.
JeeperOne
Banned
Hi everyone:
That's because we're supposed to not know what we're doing. That is if you listen to them (And according to them). Yet what they don't realize is that they are LOSING viewers and listeners alike by homogenizing everything due to "cost constraints". Look at the current state of Daytime TV and just about anything on SoapNet as prime examples of this.
Daytime soaps are plagued with bad writing, producing, etc. Daytime itself is INNUNDATED with cheap courtroom shows that give Court TV a bad name as well as talk shows that make even the soaps look bad (Perhaps that's why people would rather watch Montel Williams instead of General Hospital?). SoapNet doesn't even have anything original except for that talk show they produce (Which of course talks about, what else, the soap operas that fewer and fewer people are watching to begin with). Everything else on that channel is either reruns of old primetime shows or the week in soaps.
Do the media conglomerates REALLY care about us and value us? No. All they could give a rats moo about is $$$ and how they can make more of it in overall revenue while spending less of it on so-called "quality" programming.
In other words - THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT - AND FOR - THEMSELVES.
It's as plain & simple as that.
Just my opinion....
Of course not.Brian Donegan said:
That's because we're supposed to not know what we're doing. That is if you listen to them (And according to them). Yet what they don't realize is that they are LOSING viewers and listeners alike by homogenizing everything due to "cost constraints". Look at the current state of Daytime TV and just about anything on SoapNet as prime examples of this.
Daytime soaps are plagued with bad writing, producing, etc. Daytime itself is INNUNDATED with cheap courtroom shows that give Court TV a bad name as well as talk shows that make even the soaps look bad (Perhaps that's why people would rather watch Montel Williams instead of General Hospital?). SoapNet doesn't even have anything original except for that talk show they produce (Which of course talks about, what else, the soap operas that fewer and fewer people are watching to begin with). Everything else on that channel is either reruns of old primetime shows or the week in soaps.
Do the media conglomerates REALLY care about us and value us? No. All they could give a rats moo about is $$$ and how they can make more of it in overall revenue while spending less of it on so-called "quality" programming.
In other words - THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT - AND FOR - THEMSELVES.
It's as plain & simple as that.
Just my opinion....
JeeperOne
Banned
Hi everyone:
Message to media conglomerates - THIS IS **NOT** WHAT I PAY MY CABLE COMPANY TO SEE.
Hopefully they'll get that message (But I seriously doubt it).
Just my $.02 worth - FWIW....
Cheers
Except for commercializing and homogenizing them for every $$$ they can squeeze into (For their corporate coffers) and out of them (As they add more and more content that's out of place like Reality TV shows).TV38Fan said:
Message to media conglomerates - THIS IS **NOT** WHAT I PAY MY CABLE COMPANY TO SEE.
Hopefully they'll get that message (But I seriously doubt it).
Just my $.02 worth - FWIW....
Cheers
- Status