It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Viacom demands YouTube remove videos

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
In an attempt to stop "pirating" Viacom had demanded that Google Inc's You Tube remove more than 100,000 video clips. An attempt was made at making a "distribution" agreement, but to no prevail.
 



news.yahoo.com
Viacom said it sent a notice to YouTube on Friday morning asking the popular video-sharing site to remove clips from Viacom-owned properties including MTV Networks and BET.

The media company controlled by Sumner Redstone said its pirated programs on YouTube have generated about 1.2 billion video streams, based on a study by an outside consultant.

A YouTube spokeswoman said it would comply with the request and added, "It's unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience, which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows." The company has historically removed clips at the request of copyright owners within hours.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I wonder what arrangements were attempted and failed? What stipulation was Viacom putting on You Tube? As noted in my first supporting link, obviously there's plenty of revenue, because You Tube will be sharing it with it's users. What content was You tube to filter out? Viacom, without further dictation of it's demands, could possibly be filtering out legitimate sources of information, thus squelching the 1st Amendment.

1.2 billion streams on You Tube are allegedly "pirated" links. That's an awful lot of videos to filter out.

Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
When videos are "pirated" ("their" videos shown i.e. as embedded videos in blogs or in forums) :


It's free advertisement for the artist. It's free advertisement for YouTube. It's free advertisement for whatever TV channel it was recorded from when the label is showing in the corner. And someone wants to destroy that? :shk:



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
True, but wouldn't that require common sense? The entertainment industry seems to percieve everything as a threat to their financial stability. I really don't see why they should get all bent out of shape about it. They don't seem to think of it as advertisement, they think it's all part of some global piracy scheme. When I see things like this it makes me laugh.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I find it hilarious too.
The reason why they get a lot of hits for some of the vids is because people outside of the original country it was shown in get to see it on Youtube.
Unless they show these vids in every country, why get up in arms about it?
Obviously the home grown audience would've just watched it without bothering to tape and download it. Only a few who think of others and tape it to share.

As for the music biz' attitude, I remember they thought that the introduction of the blank cassette would be the end of the music business with people taping off the radio.


Paranoia reigns supreme when they think they may be losing $1.


I think they don't get that people watch on Youtube because it's FREE.
I watch loads of stuff on Youtube that if I had to pay for it I'd say NO THANKS.
Jee, it's just liking watching TV to a lot of people. Nothing to get excited about.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Thanks for adding your input, people...

However, I think Hellmutt said it best.

I think it's crazy to "threaten" or "demand" for YouTube to have videos removed, because somewhere down the line (or even directly there) Viacom's getting a kickback (no proof - just speculation).


Originally posted by Hellmutt
When videos are "pirated" ("their" videos shown i.e. as embedded videos in blogs or in forums) :


It's free advertisement for the artist. It's free advertisement for YouTube. It's free advertisement for whatever TV channel it was recorded from when the label is showing in the corner. And someone wants to destroy that? :shk:



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
its becuase viacoms not getting a piece of the pie so to speak. and as there are ads etc on youtube, youtube could be seen as making money off viacoms intellectual property i guess.

same as when you go to a bar/resturaunt. ever see taht sticker on the door sayign they are part of some entertainment association? (similar to riaa) thats because they pay to be part of that group if they play music in their establishment. if tehy dont, they can be sued. it adds "atmosphere" or some such bs. in the end, everyone wants a piece of the pie.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Why should google and youtub ebe allowed to pirate copyrighted material while the rest of the worlfd is not allowed to do that by law ?

Is google above the law ?!

How can a commercial station pay for their programs if all the adds are cut out?

Dont get me wrong, i like the whole sharing thing but the same laws should count for normal people as it would for google.

Maybe google should make their own content like anyone else.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Actually, they have to enforce their copyrights every time. Otherwise, someone could point out the cases they knew about and ignored and get away with pirating.



new topics




 
3

log in

join