Google/Youtube log, 14 terabytes to Viacom

[NeoDevin]

According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (in the US), as long as the internet service (google/youtube) promptly removes copyrighted content from their site,

Edit: This should be followed by "upon notification by the copyright holder".

 

[Mk]

Videos watched: 3,044.

I bet you 10 or less Viacom owned copyright on. Of corporate-owned video, I only watch television news recordings and political videos.

 

[Mk]

I read some of the earlier articles in his "Pirate's Dilemma" idea, and they were pretty interesting. This video is great.

 

[edward]

According to Wiki Youtube looses $1,000,000 per day. I am sure google has some plan in mind to generate a profit utilizing the tremndous user base of youtube.

As of Q1 2008, YouTube is not profitable, with its revenues being noted as "immaterial" by Google in a regulatory filing.[4] Its bandwidth costs are estimated at approximately $1 million a day.[4] It is estimated that in 2007, YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000, and that around ten hours of video are uploaded every minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

As far as I can remember youtube has always had a way of addressing the copyright issue at the bottom of the page. They have recently added a clickable link for reporting copyright infringement.

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

According to Wiki Youtube looses $1,000,000 per day. I am sure google has some plan in mind to generate a profit utilizing the tremndous user base of youtube.

I believe there is an option for a paid account that allows you to upload larger video clips. I have also noticed that there is a "promoted videos" section on the various pages. I'm unsure if these are maybe paid for. Obviously this hasn't been enough to even break even yet though.

 

[Shahil]

As a viewer, it should not be my responsibility to check who uploaded each video and confirm that they are, in fact, the copyright holder. That being said, Viacom has stated that they will not be pursuing the viewers of copyrighted material (note that they have never claimed they will not raise charges against those who uploaded it).

Viacom have said this but this doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to proceed with legal action against viewers. It's the same concept as buying a pirate DVD from a flea market - if you view the DVD, you are breaking the law and you can be punished for this. This case also sets the precendence for any other company to get hold of these logs of user activity and even if Viacom doesn't sue you, somebody else can! I know in South Africa, we can take issues like this to the Constitutional Court who will make a decision on whether or not the request by Viacom is Constitutional - I hope someone in the USA does this!

I believe there is an option for a paid account that allows you to upload larger video clips. I have also noticed that there is a "promoted videos" section on the various pages. I'm unsure if these are maybe paid for. Obviously this hasn't been enough to even break even yet though.

If that is the case, then basically, only the paid accounts should be handed over to Viacom because only these accounts actually contributed to Viacom "losing" income because YouTube made money through this.

 

[NeoDevin]

It's the same concept as buying a pirate DVD from a flea market - if you view the DVD, you are breaking the law and you can be punished for this.

In Canada (where I'm at) they would have to prove that you knew it was both copyrighted and pirated. I don't know about the states or any other country on this matter. In Canada there are also laws which protect our identity as individual internet users.

If that is the case, then basically, only the paid accounts should be handed over to Viacom because only these accounts actually contributed to Viacom "losing" income because YouTube made money through this.

Viacom can lose money without YouTube making any. It's not a `one or the other' situation.

 

[proton]

Yeah, they are going to sue the billions of viewers who use youtube around the world.

are you serious?

i've watched about 600 videos, FAR less than what most people here have said

 

[JasonRox]

Unlike in the United States and most other developed countries, videotaping movies in theatres is not illegal in Canada. Likewise, there is no law in Canada that specifically bans mod chips and other piracy tools, as there is in the United States.

I never seen artists complaining in Canada about easy it is to get free music and entertainment.

Only recording companies complain.

I'm currently listening to a new band I just heard of. They are Atreyu and they are very good. How did I find out about them? Looking at Linkin Park videos on YouTube and saw them listed as other videos the user (the one who uploaded them) had and now I want to buy their CD since every song I heard of them so far is good.

 

[binzing]

I believe there is an option for a paid account that allows you to upload larger video clips. I have also noticed that there is a "promoted videos" section on the various pages. I'm unsure if these are maybe paid for. Obviously this hasn't been enough to even break even yet though.

Nope, its called a Director's account, and its free and allows you to upload any length of video.

 

[WarPhalange]

Smaller artists have stated repeatedly that they get a lot of exposure via P2P networks such as Kazaa (remember that one?). It's the owners (not members) of crappy bands that get the hell promoted out of them that complain. "I spent $500,000 to make Britney Spears sound like a good singer and you're not giving me money! :("

Audio engineers have tools that let them alter the sound of a singer. Not just distort, but the program actually says "Hey, that sounds flat. It should be an F# here instead." and changes the pitch. It can also add things like vibrato to the voice to make it sound better. That kind of treatment costs money. It's not just some teenagers with half-decent chops and some good ideas getting paid a cut of whatever they sell. This is business.

 

[binzing]

I never seen artists complaining in Canada about easy it is to get free music and entertainment.

That's my justification for using Limewire, and the like. If these musicians, etc. are TRUE ARTISTS then the music is going to be more important than the profit. Besides, many people find a few songs on Limewire, and then buy more obscure ones later, so its really a great way to pick up fans.

 

[binzing]

Smaller artists have stated repeatedly that they get a lot of exposure via P2P networks such as Kazaa

Precisely, and if a small band has good music, I will likely pay for the same songs, just to help them out.

 

[Shahil]

Precisely, and if a small band has good music, I will likely pay for the same songs, just to help them out.

As you said - SMALL BAND. This, as WarPhalange said, is not a case for them - it's for the bigger artists like Madonna or Coldplay or the like. The smaller bands do benefit from Sharing networks but if you find a song by Madonna on Limewire or the like, you'll download it, listen to it and probably not buy the album because you tell yourself that it doesn't really matter that she is not getting a sale from you because she is such a big and successful artist. Now this is what gets to the record companies because instead of selling 10 million copies of the album, they are only selling 7 million and even though this is still a large amount of albums, it is losing the company a LOT of money (several million dollars) and this is the whole problem.

Still, I really don't believe that getting all our usage stats is the right way to go about proving that the companies are losing money ...

 

[JasonRox]

As you said - SMALL BAND. This, as WarPhalange said, is not a case for them - it's for the bigger artists like Madonna or Coldplay or the like. The smaller bands do benefit from Sharing networks but if you find a song by Madonna on Limewire or the like, you'll download it, listen to it and probably not buy the album because you tell yourself that it doesn't really matter that she is not getting a sale from you because she is such a big and successful artist. Now this is what gets to the record companies because instead of selling 10 million copies of the album, they are only selling 7 million and even though this is still a large amount of albums, it is losing the company a LOT of money (several million dollars) and this is the whole problem.

Still, I really don't believe that getting all our usage stats is the right way to go about proving that the companies are losing money ...

No, I don't buy lots of pop music because when I download the album, it's usually only one good song (maybe two). And that's the problem with pop artists now. They have one or two songs per album, and the rest is garbage. It's almost like they save the songs for the next album and such. I would probably buy the album if the price was lower, but with the current quality of those CD's is not worth the current price. You technically get ripped off. Now, the industry is pissed off because we now know this ahead of time because we can listen to the whole album before buying it. If that wasn't possible, lots and lots of people would be getting ripped off with CD's being sold as albums when technically they are singles.

When I listened to American Rejects, and liked the whole thing, I bought it. And I'm sure they're pretty wealthy band. Same with Linkin Park. To me, it's not about how wealthy the band or group or singer is, it's about whether or not I'm getting good quality music for $15-30 (CD cost in my area).

 

[WarPhalange]

The fact is that when the switch from cassettes to CD's was made, the price stayed exactly the same, even though CD's are a lot cheaper to make and ship. This meant that corporations were now seeing a much bigger cut of the money than before.

Downloading MP3's is a good idea, but when iTunes charges $1 per song, you might as well buy a CD anyway, so that's not an alternative.

I think the best thing to do would be for artists to scrape together the money to record an album by themselves (even easier these days with computers and such), then have it for sale on their website. No middle-man.