Viacom slaps Google with $1B YouTube lawsuit
- Thread starter Terry_Lasater
- Start date
The record and TV industry are really struggling to control content. A record label exec. recently told me that CDs are wholly considered to be a loss-leader product now. If you'd peddled that concept ten or even seven years ago and you'd have been laughed out of the room.
I am one of those respondents who say that I'd prefer to not watch video online or as a streamed service on my computer. On-demand video is another story. As computer meets and becomes TV, you'll see programming shift further toward served media.
This will be our greatest challenge as content creators and distributors. It is a big problem, controlling your content and the associative value therein. Musicians, though empowered more through the emergence of self-publishing and distribution, have very little financial stake in their work. How much are artists netting through an iTunes download?
Theatrical distribution windows continue to contract, with even mainstream blockbuster studio releases residing on thousands of screens for only weeks. First-run to second-run and rest-of-world market model distribution has all but disappeared, with most studios pressing master discs even as the their theatrical releases are just hitting the big screen.
The pricepoint on collector's edition, 2-disc DVDs is now $19.99, not $79 or $29. First release singles can be had at Target or Walmart for $7.99 or $9.99.
It's an interesting time for the studios. The have virtually no control over their libraries - where they derive the majority of their income. As their ability to control their licenses erodes, they'll have little if anything to sustain them.
e
I am one of those respondents who say that I'd prefer to not watch video online or as a streamed service on my computer. On-demand video is another story. As computer meets and becomes TV, you'll see programming shift further toward served media.
This will be our greatest challenge as content creators and distributors. It is a big problem, controlling your content and the associative value therein. Musicians, though empowered more through the emergence of self-publishing and distribution, have very little financial stake in their work. How much are artists netting through an iTunes download?
Theatrical distribution windows continue to contract, with even mainstream blockbuster studio releases residing on thousands of screens for only weeks. First-run to second-run and rest-of-world market model distribution has all but disappeared, with most studios pressing master discs even as the their theatrical releases are just hitting the big screen.
The pricepoint on collector's edition, 2-disc DVDs is now $19.99, not $79 or $29. First release singles can be had at Target or Walmart for $7.99 or $9.99.
It's an interesting time for the studios. The have virtually no control over their libraries - where they derive the majority of their income. As their ability to control their licenses erodes, they'll have little if anything to sustain them.
e
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
All that video sharing stuff was originally my idea. Yeah, I had a working prototype back in '87. Think I can get in on the lawsuit? :2vrolijk_08:
MiniMan13 said:
You must not create content? Do you prescribe that copyright owners simply allow their intellectual property to slide into a free-for-all state of anarchy?
Around here, we hear a good deal about how we all want to protect our "ideas". Well, ideas are just that - ideas. And everyone has em. What everyone does not have is product - that thing you have when you actually move your idea from the ether into a tangible. Now that all the real work is done, you think artists, producers and copyright holders should just let it become part of the free collective?
Because that's what you're saying by extension.
Oh, and believe me, Google of now, despite how cool it might seem, is just as evil and calculating as Viacom ever was.
e
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
I could see Google going the way of AOL, business wise (when they had a chokehold on everything, not when the started to bomb) but technically, they know what they're doing.
overlandfilms said:
I would think all of these artists whose music videos and performances are being posted would be glad of the extra promotion it gives them. After all, the more people view their videos, the more people are aware of them. Those very same videos can already be watched for free on yahoo, MTV and their various websites, so why not youtube?
I don't think the classic argument that website like youtube draws viewers away from the ratings holds water. The more people watch TV shows/content on youtube, the more people are aware of the shows. If they like what they see, then they tune in to the real thing; do you think people would prefer to watch ultra compressed youtube video or a TV?
Instead of suing Google, Viacom and other companies like them need to use this opportunity to use youtube as a new way to promote their media content. That'll probably make them more money in the long run.
You've adopted the loss-leader argument I described above. So, let's carry your position forward.
This freeplay music video, which was arguably served historically through cable TV (e.g., MTV, Fuse), is now promoting and building awareness for what end-product?
The album people are no longer buying? The singles that have gone the way of the dodo? Think back to the early 1980s, when all the labels were still selling vinyl singles for between $2 and $4. Now, the same labels can have a piece of a $1 iTunes download.
I'll tell you, it has gotten to the point where the only way a label or studio will be able to make money is through licensing - except that licenses are already diluted and devalued because the underlying material is available on-demand through free online services like the party named in the suit.
What the Internet does well is give product and services away. What they haven't figured out is how to make money through any other model than selling adspace. Even the NetZeros had to eventually wise-up and find a way to charge for their products - or face bankruptcy. It's philanthropic and equalizing to give everything away, but it isn't sustainable.
e
This freeplay music video, which was arguably served historically through cable TV (e.g., MTV, Fuse), is now promoting and building awareness for what end-product?
The album people are no longer buying? The singles that have gone the way of the dodo? Think back to the early 1980s, when all the labels were still selling vinyl singles for between $2 and $4. Now, the same labels can have a piece of a $1 iTunes download.
I'll tell you, it has gotten to the point where the only way a label or studio will be able to make money is through licensing - except that licenses are already diluted and devalued because the underlying material is available on-demand through free online services like the party named in the suit.
What the Internet does well is give product and services away. What they haven't figured out is how to make money through any other model than selling adspace. Even the NetZeros had to eventually wise-up and find a way to charge for their products - or face bankruptcy. It's philanthropic and equalizing to give everything away, but it isn't sustainable.
e
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Then let the artist post it for free. That's their option, they're free to do so if they want to.jade8472 said:
But to have someone else take it and post it? Essentially giving away their hard work for free? That's just theft.
Barry, why should you care? If someone posts the content of your training courses for free, it builds a greater awareness around your work. Surely, you can parlay this into money somehow?
This argument makes me spitting mad.
e
This argument makes me spitting mad.
e
Dick Campbell
Veteran
I'm with Viacom on this one. If the big guy can't protect his intellectual property, how can we little indie guys expect too? But I have mixed emotions about some of the stuff on YouTube. The broadcast content clips that will probably never be shown again anyway (and were not intended to be, in other words the network has no intent of creating a future product) are I think fair game, because it gives an exposure to people who missed it the first time around.
However, content that is intended to be continually marketed, like music (or Barry's tutorials) should always be controlled by the origianl artist or license holder.
However, content that is intended to be continually marketed, like music (or Barry's tutorials) should always be controlled by the origianl artist or license holder.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly. Your sarcasm is well noted, and I'd be surprised to find many content creators who disagree. Someone bootlegging and posting your work for free certainly isn't doing you any favors.overlandfilms said:
An artist who wants to freely distribute their work is certainly able to do so. Every artist knows about YouTube, they know how to post their work there if they want to. Point is, it should be up to the artist (or copyright holder) to do that, or not do that.
cecil995
Well-known member
its just like napster with but with videos.
I don't agree that intellectual property should be given away for free without the owner's permission. But can you really hold Google responsible for it happening? They are not the ones that are upoading the videos to YouTube, and even if they had a prompt stating that they would not allow copywrited material to be uploaded, most people would lie or ignore that warning anyway. Even if you dismantle YouTube, there will be ten other sites that will do the same exact thing. Just like mp3's, this is something that is not going to dissapear with a lawsuit.
I beleive that artists are entitled to get paid for their work. But there needs to be a new line of thinking, a new way for companies to make money off the internet, otherwise they will keep loosing profits, no matter how many lawsuits they file.
I don't agree that intellectual property should be given away for free without the owner's permission. But can you really hold Google responsible for it happening? They are not the ones that are upoading the videos to YouTube, and even if they had a prompt stating that they would not allow copywrited material to be uploaded, most people would lie or ignore that warning anyway. Even if you dismantle YouTube, there will be ten other sites that will do the same exact thing. Just like mp3's, this is something that is not going to dissapear with a lawsuit.
I beleive that artists are entitled to get paid for their work. But there needs to be a new line of thinking, a new way for companies to make money off the internet, otherwise they will keep loosing profits, no matter how many lawsuits they file.
cecil995,
The record companies took on Napster and won the same argument that you're advocating on behalf of Google or YouTube.
They enable piracy - period. They are a distribution channel for pirated content and they decidedly derive income or financial benefit from same. It might be indirect revenue, but it is revenue nonetheless.
That they have a EULA or copyrighted materials policy sign at the door was shown not to amount to due diligence in the Napster case. Napster did nothing to enforce copyright concerns, laying the blame squarely at the feet of the users, who were anecdotally made an example of as well. What remains to be seen is whether YouTube's efforts to control pirated materal (as a percentage of its total content, I'd suspect) will be enough to keep prosecutors off the stench.
They're after Google because, like the Napster suit before it, it sets precedent that makes it much easier to subsequently prosecute these corporations that enable piracy.
e
The record companies took on Napster and won the same argument that you're advocating on behalf of Google or YouTube.
They enable piracy - period. They are a distribution channel for pirated content and they decidedly derive income or financial benefit from same. It might be indirect revenue, but it is revenue nonetheless.
That they have a EULA or copyrighted materials policy sign at the door was shown not to amount to due diligence in the Napster case. Napster did nothing to enforce copyright concerns, laying the blame squarely at the feet of the users, who were anecdotally made an example of as well. What remains to be seen is whether YouTube's efforts to control pirated materal (as a percentage of its total content, I'd suspect) will be enough to keep prosecutors off the stench.
They're after Google because, like the Napster suit before it, it sets precedent that makes it much easier to subsequently prosecute these corporations that enable piracy.
e
Barry_Green
Moderator
Panasonic didn't rip me off, they're a customer of mine. They buy that product from me and then ship it to you. Panasonic does it the "right way".
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Ah, the truth no one wants to hear. I wanted to put a higher quality h.264 file up to download for Wages of Sin but those files actually look pretty good on televisions and actually make it a target for a pirate with a good file converter. The reality is a lot of people will take what they can for free, I'm probably not that different. I watch a ton of videos on youtube but considering music videos are promotion mainly I don't see the problem but then again there is a question of control of your own content. But mainly showcasing content that's mainly "for profit" could be troubling. I wouldn't want my movie running free on youtube but my trailers are fine. Plus quality is an issue. I couldn't watch a whole feature in youtube quality, not to mention having to stop and click a new chapter every ten minutes. I figure if a person can watch youtube streaming without a problem they can buy a cheap download ($2.99) and watch it in better quality.overlandfilms said:
Truth is everyone loves free content but when it's your content being given away (content you're trying to make monet from) it's not so cool anymore. Sure many of these corporations have millions of dollars but they make they money by selling stuff we want to see or hear. It's really a mixed bag but still robbing someone of profits whether they have millions or not.
-Nate
Last edited: