Google and YouTube in trouble?

[Robert]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8NRD9N80.htm

$1 billion lawsuit coming Google's way....

[Spudman]

I love youtube. Maybe we can start an internet boycott of anything having to do with Viacom. That might make them back off. Can you say "revolution?":DR

[sunvalleylaw]

I love youtube. Maybe we can start an internet boycott of anything having to do with Viacom. That might make them back off. Can you say "revolution?":DR

I'm with you!! Let's Go! Revolt against the evil cable overlords, starting right here in Idaho! :DR :D

[Jimi75]

YouTube is one of the best things that happened to us musicians in the last couple of years.

Of course it is true that you can wathc usually copyrighted material, but I for instance still prefer to buy music dvds. I get a taste of what a concert is like on YouTube and then buy or not buy the dvd. Commercially seen, youTube offers people the chance to make a buying decision. And I bet that the sales that go back to someone seeing an artist on YouTube and buying his cd top the 1 billion mark by far!

I hope they are not going to close it nor make it something you have to pay for.

[sunvalleylaw]

Exactly Jimi. As an example, my favorite vid of Neil playing Old Man solo from the 71 BBC concert may go away. Can't find a place to buy it (so why are they hassling youtube, cause VH1 plays it sometimes?) I don't get VH1 so I can't record it myself. If they sold the darn concert DVD I would buy it! But because I saw clips on YouTube first. If they are going to try to force me to buy VH1 and then buy the DVD, they are sorely mistaken. I am not going to pay that much for broadcast media.

[Lev]

I don't think there'll be a huge change - I think Viacom is more concerned with currently running shows. For example, if I miss South Park tonight I know I can catch it on you tube tomorrow - and I don't need to see any adverts. This is what will be clamped down on.

I think historical content will be left alone and from a musical point of view I believe many artists are happy for their stuff to be on youtube. I've discovered Joe Bonamassa, Tommy Emmanuelle and John Mayer on youtube and I now own many of their CD's. It's a win/win for the artists and record companies either way.

I can see however where broadcasters are coming from with loss of advertising revenue. However this is going to be a fact of life going forward, I know many people who have Sky+ boxes in the UK and Ireland (a satellite receiver with a hard disk). This means you can watch what you want when you want and don't have to sit through adverts!

[Myles]

I can see however where broadcasters are coming from with loss of advertising revenue. However this is going to be a fact of life going forward, I know many people who have Sky+ boxes in the UK and Ireland (a satellite receiver with a hard disk). This means you can watch what you want when you want and don't have to sit through adverts!
The problem with using Sky+ or YouTube to avoid advertising is that its only going to make Advertisers more aggressive in their demands. We already see product placement in our movies and tv shows (and video games I might add) and this is only going to become more and more prevalent as people continue to find new techniques to avoid advertising.

The beauty of a commercial is its a break to get up and do something else. Isn't it worse to have a steady stream of advertising thrown at us the entire time we watch a TV show?

I honestly believe that by people trying to solve the "problem" of commercials, they are only going to make the quality of content on tv worse.

[Danzego]

I don't think there'll be a huge change - I think Viacom is more concerned with currently running shows. For example, if I miss South Park tonight I know I can catch it on you tube tomorrow - and I don't need to see any adverts. This is what will be clamped down on.

I think historical content will be left alone and from a musical point of view I believe many artists are happy for their stuff to be on youtube.

Yes, but per usual, it's going to be a content wide ban that will take place, not just what Viacom decides they want to "protect" and what they don't. To avoid problems, YouTube is just going to have to disallow it all.

YouTube will basically be back to videos of a bunch of nutty teens jumping head first into garbage cans and whatnot.

As for historical content and many artists being happy for their stuff being on YouTube, again, it may not make a difference. Most of those artists don't own their own stuff; it's some media giant like, say, Viacom, who has the rights to those video recordings. As such, it will all come down......

....and, of course, we're once again back to nutty teens and garbage cans. ;)

[marnold]

Here's one example of how Big Media ticks me off. For years I wanted to get Spinal Tap on VHS. I looked high and low everywhere. It could not be found. Why not? Because they were waiting to release the special edition for the anniversary of the movie. So even if I wanted to buy the movie legally, I could not. Why? Because some exec thought it would be a good way to maximize profits. Don't kid yourselves. It's not about the artists, it's about profits (and desperately trying to hold on to outdated business models).

[Tone2TheBone]

Copyrights my arse the internet should be FREE! Free the internet!

[Lev]

I know the artists don't own the rights but when we're talking about music DVD's etc usually the record company owns the rights. I'd like to think that the record companies can see the power of youtube as a marketing tool itself (I see a clip I like on youtube & I go buy the full DVD). Maybe I'm just being naive :confused:

[Danzego]

Here's one example of how Big Media ticks me off. For years I wanted to get Spinal Tap on VHS. I looked high and low everywhere. It could not be found. Why not? Because they were waiting to release the special edition for the anniversary of the movie. So even if I wanted to buy the movie legally, I could not. Why? Because some exec thought it would be a good way to maximize profits. Don't kid yourselves. It's not about the artists, it's about profits (and desperately trying to hold on to outdated business models).


Then I take it Disney's business model must drive you bonkers, huh? ;)



To Lev: what I mean to say is that when all of this goes down with YouTube and Viacom, it's going to be a sitewide ban on all copyrighted materials, not just whatever belongs to Viacom. First, it would be too much trouble to take every media piece posted and see if the copyright belongs to Viacom or someone else. Second, once Viacom is done tearing into YouTube (or even before they're done), a ton of other companies are going to be coming out of the woodwork to get their piece of the action. Again, too much trouble just to take down or disallow the pieces that apply to the companies that don't want their stuff up there. That will include ANY non-bootleg artist videos, unfortunately.

Then, of course, once that's done, these companies could turn around and figure out a way to make money off of their stuff being posted on YouTube, like them posting and controlling their properties, doing a "pay per play" or something. This could very well turn into Napster all over again in one form or another.