Comments | erestor: Meta: Pardon my French, but "SCREW YOU", Viacom!

erestor

Meta: Pardon my French, but "SCREW YOU", Viacom!

Jul 03, 2008 17:10

Viacom Gets YouTube User Data

Google Must Divulge YouTube Log

Judge Protects YouTube's Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves

Yes, yes, I know, "meh, what do I care as long as I can still watch videos" - but thanks to Judge Louis L. Stanton in New York (that will become important later on), Viacom has now the means to get directly on the chests of ( Read more... )

wtf, rant, meta, copyright

Comments 32

ani_mama July 3 2008, 15:31:17 UTC

So why is this not front page news here in the US? Are these bastards planning on suing every single Youtube user in the US? Way to go. I think that just put an end to Youtube, and hopefully enough people will be ticked off that Viacom might suffer a bit too.

erestor July 6 2008, 16:14:43 UTC

I guess people basically see "Google doesn't have to hand over source code" and think the case has gone well. I'm actually baffled to see how little people care. LJ switches some code somewhere to turn the background yellow and there's screaming and outrage. Here, our data are given to Viacom (and I refuse to believe this will NOT have eventually consequences for the fanvid creators) and it's simply shrugged off.

Well, I guess all good things come to those who wait...

blackjackrocket July 7 2008, 02:49:00 UTC

It *is* front page news. It was all over Yahoo, and was front page in the Oregonian (my local paper).

ani_mama July 7 2008, 05:19:05 UTC

It wasn't anywhere in the local papers here until two days after I read it here...guess East Washington is a bit slow.

jaiden_s July 3 2008, 15:40:35 UTC

I expect this ruling to be challenged and, hopefully, struck down by a higher court.

Regardless of what happens, it's still extremely short-sighted of Viacom. You're exactly right. The way people use interactive media has changed, and big corporations are unwilling to change with them. They will ultimately lose customers if they keep it up. See the recording industry for an example of what NOT to do.

erestor July 6 2008, 16:17:44 UTC

Google hasn't challenged, they'll do as ordered. But the warnings of organisations like EEF have gone unnoticed or ignored, so it seems the overwhelming majority of people is fine and dandy with it. That explains a lot; in general.

Viacom and other media mammoths will have to change their attitude. If they think going the way of the RIAA is the right one to chose, they should sack their advisors, because that won't get them anywhere. You want the money of your audience? Then give them what they *want*.

jaiden_s July 6 2008, 17:10:12 UTC

Actually, I expect the challenge to come from another group. Thus far, most of the rulings have sided with privacy, so this case is the lone anamoly. (anomaly? I'm a bad speller)

Ultimately, trying to sanction users for making fan videos will be nearly impossible to do. Like music sharing, it's hard to enforce. For every Napster that's shut down, a Limewire pops up in its place.

erestor July 6 2008, 17:17:38 UTC

I hope this will happen. As things look now, it's a pretty done deal. :-/

I can't understand why companies like Viacom can waste so much money and energy on fighting the tide rather than trying to work out a business model to profit from the changed habits of their customers! As you say, they can't stop it. Do they really believe they could? Dillusional, then.

bonevene July 3 2008, 17:33:08 UTC

Honestly, I could understand if the people were uploading entire episodes or whatever. Well, I understand somewhat, I still have a hard time believing people who watch episodes on youtube would buy it if it wasn't on youtube. Economy as it is a lot of people can't afford luxuries. And people who can afford them are more likely to buy stuff if they watched a few episodes on youtube and know they like it.

What really upsets me is that they are also coming down on the people who just arrange clips to make music fanvids. That's hardly stepping on anyones toes, in fact its more like free advertisement. Why complain about free advertisement?

I'm going to have to look to see what all Viacom is involved in, so I can see if a boycott is viable as well.

erestor July 6 2008, 16:41:48 UTC

Everytime I come across an official TV website with videos that are "unfortunately not available outside of the UK/USA", I think: well, that's where piracy comes from, thanks, you morons. Take "Swingtown", for example. They made it available for download on iTunes. Great! But only if you live within the USA. Yeah, great, thank you. They'd make more money if people all over the planet could buy their favourite show legally rather than having to hope that maybe, ten years from now, it might be shown in the country they live in, butchered, cut and dubbed ( ... )

blackjackrocket July 7 2008, 02:49:55 UTC

I was with you until you equated dubbing with butchering and cutting.

erestor July 7 2008, 09:04:16 UTC

You have never seen the German versions British TV shows, have you...?

And if cutting up to five minutes out of an episode to add more commercials is NOT "cutting and butchering", then I don't know what is.

But it's good to hear that at least the dubbing for anime is done with the greatest care, respect for the original, a big budget and outstanding voice actors. I envy you. Unfortunately, this is not what happens here - not even for blockbusters:

Thread 10

weepingnaiad July 3 2008, 18:49:50 UTC

All of this bothers me so much that I have considered going back to school to become a lawyer to defend individuals from this kind of stuff. Maybe some day...

And, it's not age-ist if you are dealing with someone who does not use nor understand the new media, it is more: if you don't use the technology you are not qualified to rule on it. The major problem with all of this is that the law makers are so far behind the technology that they listen to whatever Corporate Lobbyists tell them and practically allow the Corporate Media to write our laws, and our judges are no better, in fact the higher up you go, the more out of touch with technology they are.

Luckily, Google owns YouTube and has pockets that are as deep as Viacom. I'm sure they will continue to stall and appeal, at least I hope so. If not, it is the death knell for YouTube.

Thanks for the info!
*hugs*
WN

erestor July 6 2008, 16:46:09 UTC

Word. We have people dealing here with a matter they obviously don't understand, fighting against customers they don't know. However, I fear Google's pockets are not as deep as Viacom. I never thought it was a good move by them to buy youtube... they haven't appealed and agreed to hand the material over. Fantastic.

If the outcome of this case will be the death of youtube, it will eventually, though in the long term, also be the death of Viacom and the likes. Their customers have changed their habits and won't look back. If Viacom can't deliver what they want, their customers will eventually go elsewhere. The whole thing is completely stupid.

anjak_j July 3 2008, 19:44:30 UTC

Like yourself, I understand the fight against privacy, but the way the entertainment industry is addressing it is to my mind like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. When the internet started to be more common-place in homes and the likes of Napster came along, the music industry was warned about the consequences - and chose to bury its head in the sand. The continual answer of the RIAA is to sue people who download illegally. And instead of learning anything from how badly this - and DRM - has failed, the MPAA and companies like Viacom are heading in exactly the same direction ( ... )

erestor July 6 2008, 17:03:36 UTC

Fully agree with you on the RIAA - it's not working, that's obvious. All it does is taking up valuable resources from the legal systems that could really be used differently. The media giants will have to sit down sooner or later and work out a concept that brings their target - making money - into agreement with the wishes of the customers. Sueing them (or youtube) is not the way ( ... )