http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/7F3B5266DDAEF5A4CC25729E002048FF
Media company Viacom International is suing online video provider YouTube and its parent company, Google, for more than US$1 billion, saying the companies are infringing on Viacom's copyrights because almost 160,000 unauthorised video clips are available for viewing on YouTube.
New York-based Viacom also says it is seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from further copyright infringement. Google acquired YouTube in November for US$1.65 billion.
The 27-page lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that thousands of unauthorized clips of Viacom's programming have been viewed on YouTube more than 1.5 billion times.
I'd be interested to see how Viacom arrived at the $1 Billion number. I don't begrudge them the right to seek recourse, but that number seems a *tad* high. I'm surprised they didn't ask for exactly the acquisition costs of YouTube by Google.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- $1 Billion for gariny Colbert?
$1 Billion for gariny Colbert?Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I begrudge them the sign of their number. In all likelihood, they make more money as a result of more viewers who got an email link to a clip. I doubt they have lost many viewers who just download all the shows, but I'm an ancient relative to the internet, so who knows maybe thats what all the kids do these days.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before free online TV clips went the way of free MP3's, but strangely, it's still as pointless. I hope YouTube doesn't get Napsterized.
Atomicflea wrote:
I hope YouTube doesn't get Napsterized.
I don't care if they start charging to watch things I could see on television, but they better not reuire me to pay for my daily fix of watching kids beat each other up after school. Then I'd feel like my rights were being violated.
Atomicflea wrote:
I suppose it was only a matter of time before free online TV clips went the way of free MP3's, but strangely, it's still as pointless. I hope YouTube doesn't get Napsterized.
I'm not so sure. Bands make money by and large by selling CD's.
TV makes money by having more viewers - and thus generating more ad revenue. In this case, I want everybody to download my past shows so that they actually want to see the next one. If they don't want to see it - they won't turn the TV on and they won't download it either.
However, the whole model for TV is failing. People TiVo the shows and skip the commercials. I'm certain they're going to try to stop this, but it isn't really possible. Once someone sends an image or sound through equipment I own, I can and will capture it, if I want to. Sure, you may persuade MicroSoft to prevent me, and they may do it, but they aren't the only fish in the sea. This is looming on the horizon and I bet it will push quite a load of people to linux.
yossarian wrote:
I'm not so sure. Bands make money by and large by selling CD's.
TV makes money by having more viewers - and thus generating more ad revenue. In this case, I want everybody to download my past shows so that they actually want to see the next one. If they don't want to see it - they won't turn the TV on and they won't download it either.
TV makes money by having more viewers - and thus generating more ad revenue. In this case, I want everybody to download my past shows so that they actually want to see the next one. If they don't want to see it - they won't turn the TV on and they won't download it either.
Television stations have been offering legal downloads of various show episodes either through I-tunes for a small fee, or in some cases for free directly from the television's own homepage. For example, CBS has been offering people the chance to watch shows such as Jericho, NCIS, and Numb3rs on their "Innertube" service for free for quite awhile now. Stations therefore DO realize the power that offering episode downloads can provide for them in terms of bringing in new or helping to retain old viewers.
Furthermore, while illegal downloads may or may not bring in new viewers, it is more of an issue of copyright on the part of the original owners of the material being downloaded. The owner of a particular TV show or music work has historically had a right to say how it may be distributed or licensed out. With illegal downloading, the owner of the work has no say in how his/her's property is used. That would serve as a reason why Viacom is suing Youtube.
Edited partly for grammar and also since apparently Viacom has an 'i' in it somewhere.
Edited, Mar 14th 2007 5:22pm by Nightsintdreams
Proud citizen of Miranda.
-Currently on Pochacco Server of Hello Kitty Online.
-Currently on Pochacco Server of Hello Kitty Online.
Nightsintdreams, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
With illegal downloading, the owner of the work has no say in how his/her's property is used. That would serve as a reason why Viacom is suing Youtube.
Within my terrifically limited grasp of the law resides one factoid, likely wrong, that the sue-er need come up with an actual amount of damage that the sue-ee should pay.
In this case, I can't see why it isn't negative.
See above.
yossarian wrote:
Nightsintdreams, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
With illegal downloading, the owner of the work has no say in how his/her's property is used. That would serve as a reason why Viacom is suing Youtube.
Within my terrifically limited grasp of the law resides one factoid, likely wrong, that the sue-er need come up with an actual amount of damage that the sue-ee should pay.
Because you're dealing with a phenomenon called "funky business math" (also known as "budget math"). It requires you make specific assumptions about use and cost and then do some calcuations to arrive at a number that is usually ridiculous but generally represents an upper bounds of what the "real" number would be.
In this case, they figure out the total number of hours of their content that is being downloaded "free" by users of Youtube. They then calculate the average "dollar per hour" they generate on a per-viewer basis from advertising revenue for their programming. They then multiply this value times the total number of viewer-hours "stolen" by users of Youtube.
And that's how you arrive at a 1 billion dollar figure (more or less). It's "funky", because we can't at all assume that had those viewers not used Youtube to view that content that they would have viewed it on other "legal" sources, and that each of them would have in turn contributed more total advertising funds as a result. However, for legal purposes, you kinda can take this as an upper bounds though. If every single one of those people had viewed the content legally, and they had purchased advertised products at the average rates for their viewers across the board, this would have generated X amount of additional revenue which was lost due to the copyright violation.
And in legal cases, you always start with the highball figure.
Quote:
In this case, I can't see why it isn't negative.
Lack of imagination on your part IMO...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
In this case, they figure out the total number of hours of their content that is being downloaded "free" by users of Youtube. They then calculate the average "dollar per hour" they generate on a per-viewer basis from advertising revenue for their programming. They then multiply this value times the total number of viewer-hours "stolen" by users of Youtube.
Then they throw that number out the window and ask for a Billion.
Then they go back and work backwards from a Billion.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
In this case, they figure out the total number of hours of their content that is being downloaded "free" by users of Youtube. They then calculate the average "dollar per hour" they generate on a per-viewer basis from advertising revenue for their programming. They then multiply this value times the total number of viewer-hours "stolen" by users of Youtube.
Then they throw that number out the window and ask for a Billion.
Then they go back and work backwards from a Billion.
"So what'll scare the **** out of YouTube and get them to dance to our music?"
"10 million?"
"Please, *****."
"100 million?"
"Hmmm, Noooo."
"100 Billion!?"
"... yea right. I wish."
"1 Billion?"
"Makes my *** pucker. Lets use that."
I don't think anyone takes the $1b number very seriously, it's just to put pressure on the goog to work a deal with Viacomdios.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Viacomdios.
Haha.
Surprised nobody has said the obvious yet...
Why not sue ISP's for offering upstreams and downstreams, network companies for offering NIC, and Al Gore for inventing the Interweb?
Do the owner's of YouTube upload this content on their own, or is it uploaded by people from around the globe? Considering it's the latter, how do you successfully sue a middle-man? Like I said... if yer gonna sue YouTube for being a middleman of content, then Al Gore needs to go down in flames!
Seriously though... wtf is the point of having a legal disclaimer if YOU as a company obide by it.. but get sued over something YOU have not done?
Ooooh ooooh and the best part...
Viacom, you thieves. You do realize that YouTube does not post copyrighted material, nor do they condone it, and they will ALSO remove it if they are notified it exists.
Wait, Judges wills till find YouTube guilty, even though this entire debacle can be solved with an -email to youtube giving links to copyrighted material that you did not grant permission for.
Bet ya 5 bucks Viacom didn't do this either..
Oh well, Viacom can eat me.
Edited, Mar 15th 2007 5:13am by borntolandhard
Edited, Mar 15th 2007 5:16am by borntolandhard
Why not sue ISP's for offering upstreams and downstreams, network companies for offering NIC, and Al Gore for inventing the Interweb?
Do the owner's of YouTube upload this content on their own, or is it uploaded by people from around the globe? Considering it's the latter, how do you successfully sue a middle-man? Like I said... if yer gonna sue YouTube for being a middleman of content, then Al Gore needs to go down in flames!
Seriously though... wtf is the point of having a legal disclaimer if YOU as a company obide by it.. but get sued over something YOU have not done?
Quote:
Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners. YouTube reserves all rights not expressly granted in and to the Website and the Content. You agree to not engage in the use, copying, or distribution of any of the Content other than expressly permitted herein, including any use, copying, ordistribution of User Submissions of third parties obtained through the Website for any commercial purposes. If you download or print a copy of the Content for personal use, you must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained therein. You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security related features of the YouTube Website or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the YouTube Website or the Content therein.
Ooooh ooooh and the best part...
Quote:
and YouTube will remove all Content and User Submissions if properly notified that such Content or User Submission infringes on another's intellectual property rights.
Viacom, you thieves. You do realize that YouTube does not post copyrighted material, nor do they condone it, and they will ALSO remove it if they are notified it exists.
Wait, Judges wills till find YouTube guilty, even though this entire debacle can be solved with an -email to youtube giving links to copyrighted material that you did not grant permission for.
Bet ya 5 bucks Viacom didn't do this either..
Quote:
D. In particular, if you are a copyright owner or an agent thereof and believe that any User Submission or other content infringes upon your copyrights, you may submit a notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") by providing our Copyright Agent with the following information in writing (see 17 U.S.C 512(c)(3) for further detail):
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material;
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail;
(v) A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
YouTube's designated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement is: Heather Gillette, 1000 Cherry Ave., Second Floor, San Bruno, CA 94066, email: copyright@youtube.com, fax: 650-872-8513. For clarity, only DMCA notices should go to the Copyright Agent; any other feedback, comments, requests for technical support, and other communications should be directed to YouTube customer service through http://www.google.com/support/youtube. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with all of the requirements of this Section 5(D), your DMCA notice may not be valid.
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material;
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail;
(v) A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
YouTube's designated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement is: Heather Gillette, 1000 Cherry Ave., Second Floor, San Bruno, CA 94066, email: copyright@youtube.com, fax: 650-872-8513. For clarity, only DMCA notices should go to the Copyright Agent; any other feedback, comments, requests for technical support, and other communications should be directed to YouTube customer service through http://www.google.com/support/youtube. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with all of the requirements of this Section 5(D), your DMCA notice may not be valid.
Oh well, Viacom can eat me.
Edited, Mar 15th 2007 5:13am by borntolandhard
Edited, Mar 15th 2007 5:16am by borntolandhard
gbaji, you have a reference as to exactly how they are computing this, or just guessing? Past experience? It sounds right.
All the people who downloaded the shows had the opportunity to watch them on air. And didn't. Google/youtube is giving free advertising to future shows by showing past shows.
Let me rephrase: I understand the settlement is the sum of two parts: the money lost by Viacom minus the money earned by Viacom.
I just can't imagine the former being greater then the latter.
All the people who downloaded the shows had the opportunity to watch them on air. And didn't. Google/youtube is giving free advertising to future shows by showing past shows.
Let me rephrase: I understand the settlement is the sum of two parts: the money lost by Viacom minus the money earned by Viacom.
I just can't imagine the former being greater then the latter.
What is "gariny"?
Cactuszach Rathebringer- [EQ]85 Human Pally Karana
-retired
Cactuszach- [FFXI] 75 Galka Monk Hades server
-retired
Cactuszach- [LOTRO] 50 Dwarf Guardian Vilya server
-retired
-retired
Cactuszach- [FFXI] 75 Galka Monk Hades server
-retired
Cactuszach- [LOTRO] 50 Dwarf Guardian Vilya server
-retired
yossarian wrote:
gbaji, you have a reference as to exactly how they are computing this, or just guessing? Past experience? It sounds right.
All the people who downloaded the shows had the opportunity to watch them on air. And didn't. Google/youtube is giving free advertising to future shows by showing past shows.
Let me rephrase: I understand the settlement is the sum of two parts: the money lost by Viacom minus the money earned by Viacom.
I just can't imagine the former being greater then the latter.
All the people who downloaded the shows had the opportunity to watch them on air. And didn't. Google/youtube is giving free advertising to future shows by showing past shows.
Let me rephrase: I understand the settlement is the sum of two parts: the money lost by Viacom minus the money earned by Viacom.
I just can't imagine the former being greater then the latter.
You're missing a key component. Viacom does not get paid for advertising that isn't seen on a network or show that they own. I'm sure the advertisers are perfectly happy that you're watching their ad on a downloaded copy of some TV show. But they pay Viacom (and other outlets) based on the viewer ratings of the broadcast themselves. Their contracts are negotiated based on those viewer ratings. Thus, if people are choosing not to watch the live broadcast, but are later downloading it and watching it, Viacom loses money.
That's why many networks are perfectly ok with providing their shows "for free" as a download from their own sites. They can record that and get accurate data. It essentially allows them to collect additional viewers and use that when negotiating for funds from advertisers. Again. Illegal downloads and copies cost them this revenue.
So no. They don't make more money if you view it on Youtube.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
These are the desperate last stands of patent and copyright laws about to go up in flames. Ideas are not property because ideas are immaterial and uncircumscribable. Can you send your house through someone else's house or yard without violating another's property rights? Nope. Can you send sound and images through another's house or yard without violating property rights? Property is property because it is exclusive, material, and circumscribable.
You cannot use violent force to prevent others from mimicking your every word or action. You cannot use violent force to prevent the paparazzi from taking celebrity photos.
Just remember everytime you download something you are fighting the good fight, and there's strength in numbers. It's impossible for the content providers to win. Infinite distribution of all content costs fractions of a penny, while enforcement and collection of restricting freedom costs more than all the combined physical material resources in existence.
The biggest problem now is spam, mislabeling clips to get people to view that which they do not want to view.
It'll be hilarious, and free entertainment, to watch these content companies' stock prices go down in smoke just like the music industry. In the end, Viacom is just pissing away millions in legal fees. If you don't want to be copied, STFU and don't say or do anything in the first place. That's your only guarantee against being copied. We can put doors and windows in our houses, in our computer programs, whenever we want to. Who gives a **** if you were the first to do it.
You have the freedom to shape your material property in any manner whatsoever you choose. It's amazing how the free market is overcoming one of the oldest anti-free market Guild restrictions of all time. The history books will look back upon these days as the biggest revolution since the founding of the USA. The mp3 heard round the world, literally! Lol, rack it! Woot!
You cannot use violent force to prevent others from mimicking your every word or action. You cannot use violent force to prevent the paparazzi from taking celebrity photos.
Just remember everytime you download something you are fighting the good fight, and there's strength in numbers. It's impossible for the content providers to win. Infinite distribution of all content costs fractions of a penny, while enforcement and collection of restricting freedom costs more than all the combined physical material resources in existence.
The biggest problem now is spam, mislabeling clips to get people to view that which they do not want to view.
It'll be hilarious, and free entertainment, to watch these content companies' stock prices go down in smoke just like the music industry. In the end, Viacom is just pissing away millions in legal fees. If you don't want to be copied, STFU and don't say or do anything in the first place. That's your only guarantee against being copied. We can put doors and windows in our houses, in our computer programs, whenever we want to. Who gives a **** if you were the first to do it.
You have the freedom to shape your material property in any manner whatsoever you choose. It's amazing how the free market is overcoming one of the oldest anti-free market Guild restrictions of all time. The history books will look back upon these days as the biggest revolution since the founding of the USA. The mp3 heard round the world, literally! Lol, rack it! Woot!
The history books will look back upon these days as the biggest revolution since the founding of the USA. The mp3 heard round the world, literally! Lol, rack it! Woot!
Out of Thorazine again?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Let me rephrase: I understand the settlement is the sum of two parts: the money lost by Viacom minus the money earned by Viacom.
I just can't imagine the former being greater then the latter.
You're missing a key component. Viacom does not get paid for advertising that isn't seen on a network or show that they own.
...
So no. They don't make more money if you view it on Youtube.
Not at all. There is a negative component. See above. Of course they don't make more money if I view it on youtube versus watching live. They make nothing. However, if I watch live because I've seen a past one online, they do. It's free advertising. Which, ironically, is how they make their money.
/sigh
Also: gbaji, you have a reference as to exactly how they are computing this, or just guessing?
gbaji, you have a reference as to exactly how they are computing this, or just guessing?
Do you think he's guessing? Hmm?
Heh, come on folks, does anyone really think he's just guessing?
Edited, Mar 15th 2007 10:39pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 344
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (344)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- $1 Billion for gariny Colbert?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC