It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Breaking: YouTube Wins Case Against Viacom

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:17 PM

Breaking: YouTube Wins Case Against Viacom

Google-owned YouTube has won its copyright infringement case against Viacom, according to a Google blog post.

Viacom had sued YouTube for more than a billion dollars, arguing that the company was founded on pirated video content, much of it from Viacom properties.

In its decision, the court sided with Google, which argued that it was protected under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:17 PM
Viacom is appealing the decision, as one would expect them to. Viacom was suing YouTube for $1 billion dollars for massive copyright infringement. I believe it might have been right after Google acquired YouTube.

To me, with content, there is reasonable and unreasonable, and in this case I think Viacom was probably being a bit unreasonable. I think they lost a lot of goodwill and free advertising with this boner move. There's principle and then there's stubborness.

Now I haven't given this a whole lot of thought, and things are changing daily in this medium (video content streaming and availability), but I suspect that Viacom, being in the business of making money, really doesn't want YouTube cutting in on their profits. YouTube, however is typically just snips and bits, which to me would seem to create more demand for full content and could be used to Viacom's benefit...a stance many other media giants do take.

The thing too is that YouTube is a lot smarter faster, and more reliable than these network websites, who both can't seem to deliver uninterrupted streams and who play dangle-the-content with their stuff. Not to mention now that companies like with HBO are trying to find ways to charge you then charge you again (or wow charge you less) for something in all likelihood you have already paid for. Things like Comcast's On-Demand are a lot more friendly than a lot of the network websites, which seem to love to play the "now you see it now it's gone" game a lot.

This leads to one of my pet peeves about Hulu, but it's not really their fault...their content stems from network content and it's the networks that all have their own rules. If most people are like me, they just eventually give up trying to catch something they might have missed, and in the case of cable subscribers, technically already paid for.

Anyway, I had to write something, so I did.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:05 PM
My opinion on this whole sharing law suit craze that media providers are on lately is simple. If they would learn to adeptly provide their media to the public by taking full advantage of the internet's capabilities, they would not have to worry about suing someone for infringement.

Companies are showing their greed, arrogance and laziness in the manner in which they try to deal with providing and protecting streaming media.

Companies like Google YouTube, Hulu, Netflix and so on are taking advantage of a new media outlet that is more conducive to consumer desires rather than just continuing to push that same old bolder up that same old hill day in and day out.

If they would improve upon their streaming, membership and ad revenue areas, they would find that the average consumer would flood their small corner of the world and consume their media offerings with lustful abandon.

Gone are the days of sitting in front of a normal television and watching 30 minutes of commercials to see 20 minutes of television. Today, its all about speed, compactness, and limitations.

I gladly pay a paultry >$7 monthly fee to a site that allows me to watch anything and everything that I want, beit movie or series, that streams without commercials and without pauses. In many cases it is even better than the free offerings of Hulu or a network website that offers just what is current with minimal ad-hocking and fair streaming speeds.

Also, think about the limits their companies put on who can watch their online shows. Open it up to the world and you can triple-triple your viewer base and bring that much more ad revenue or lower subscription fees to the bare minimum. In that case your quantity would allow for your quality.

Finally, archive more episodes for viewing. Let people who work during prime time be able to go further back to follow up on an entire series (and all seasons) whenever they want. The current montra of limiting availability just opens these networks up to pirate sites and draws people away on off to some obscure site that actually houses old episodes of shows. Keep the viewers in your own house if you want to succeed.

I guess its just easier to sue than it is to think outside the box and, oh...I dont know...provide a service to a consumer.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:08 PM
IMO these companies are all greedy and only care about money not the content or what the site is about. Makes me sick to see them sue for that much money and for what? Oh they showed Viacom vids? Viacom higher ups I am sure aren't starving..

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:21 PM
Companies like Viacom need to slingshot themselves into the 21st century and actually explore the internet and its full capabilities before they throw away the chance of a good "bed partner" in youtube with advertisements and the like. I don't mind adverts, but I certainly squirm a little when the Viacom's of this world try to get their extra couple of quid out of what is essentially user-powered mediums.

They don't like it up 'em.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:32 PM
You guys said what I was trying to say so much better!

HBO has or is working on something that if you subscribe to them on cable you get to watch stuff on-demand online for free (or for a small additional fee...I forget). If that goes anything like all the other network and cable networks' individual sites...I dunno. Many of them are just bad as far as I'm concerned. They frustrate me more than anything...first because the content I want is never there and second because they're choppy and slow. And they keep the commercials. Pffft.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM
Why bother in the first place, you might sue youtube and maybe even win, there's no stopping the sharing of content on the internet anyway. Why watch on youtube when you can simply download either a few hundred mb xvid or few gig hd rip of anything released within hours on any given torrent site.

And yes i do have a cable subscription, i just like watching when it suits me, not the companies.

[edit on 24/6/10 by Romekje]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:39 PM

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity....

As long as they fess up to the users identity and remove or block access to the material upon notification - they are not liable....

So there is law, (which we spoke of at the time, but few were listening,) that all a corporate entity has to do is claim you may be infringing on their copyright and a) you are identified to them for legal action, b) a subpoena is issued (automatically) and c) your material is 'disappeared.'

Yeah, nice protection for intellectual property.

All this, based upon clearly identified fraudulent government-refuted reports about the fiscal impact piracy was having on the media moguls from these same corporations.

Uh huh. ... and justice for all.....

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

viacom are kind of morons
they have the potential to use the iligal files to make money like other companies who have opted to have adverts placed on contents which are theirs insted of forcing google to remove them, making a gain from it insted of losing out on potential reveniew, they need to hire better people,

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 02:47 PM
Weren't they suing youtube all because of so many south park videos on youtube?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:29 PM
I wonder if Obama's new super taskforce will roll up on Google's Headquarters.

Tomorrow Google will be flying the Jolly Roger scot free.

top topics


log in