Viacom files $1 Billion Lawsuit Against YouTube

[Zkribbler]

$1 Billion Lawsuit Filed Against YouTube
Viacom Owns MTV, Comedy Central, Others

MTV owner Viacom Inc. sued the popular video-sharing site YouTube and its corporate parent, Google Inc., on Tuesday, seeking more than $1 billion in damages on claims of widespread copyright infringement.

Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube and represents the biggest confrontation to date between a major media company and the hugely popular video-sharing site, which Google bought in November for $1.76 billion.

YouTube's soaring popularity has been a cause of fascination but also fear among the owners of traditional media outlets, who worry that YouTube's displaying of clips from their programs -- without compensation -- will lure away viewers and ad dollars from cable and broadcast TV.

Viacom is especially at risk because much of its programming is aimed at younger audiences who also are heavy Internet users.

Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down.

YouTube said at the time that it would comply with the request and said it cooperates with all copyright holders to remove programming as soon as they're notified.

In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

Viacom said YouTube's business model, "which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."

Viacom said YouTube has avoided taking the initiative to curtail copyright infringement on its site, instead shifting the burden and costs of monitoring the video-sharing site for unauthorized clips onto the "victims of its infringement."

A representative for Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Other media companies have also clashed with YouTube over copyrights, but some, including CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, have reached deals with the video-sharing site to license their material. CBS Corp. used to be part of Viacom but has since split off into a separate company.

Universal Music Group, a unit of France's Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with the company.

In addition to damages, Viacom is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips.

[DinoDoc]

Well they are kind of asking for it when I can easily find entire episodes of series and they make money from the act. I fail to see the need for the :mad: face.

[Solly]

Is Dj Sammy - Boys of SUmmer one of theirs? :hmmm:

Let see this.

[Zkribbler]

You're misquoting me. I didn't say :mad: I said :angry:

:tongue:


BTW: I can already predict what the defense will be: "We didn't post those videos. People from all over the world did."

[Winston]

Viacom files $1 Billion Lawsuit Against YouTube

:b:

I wish I'd thought of that! Running one of the most supremely narcissistic gathering places on the net just can't be legal.

Maybe I'll sue MySpace.com then.

[Solly]

Well I've not bought a CD for two years (for myself anyway) so listening to a few tunes on Youtube now makes me want to go and buy several. Why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot..MY CD purchases peaked when Napster was around..

[Proteus_MST]

I always suspected that (because of the music videos) they would somday get problems.

But I´m astonished about the direction of the attack. I would rather have suspected an attack from the side of GEMA or RIAA.

[Lord Avalon]

I wondered why Google bought YouTube, seeing as how they'd be a big target for lawsuits.

[Oerdin]

I can't wait until youtube moves it's servers to the Democratic Republic of Congo (or some such place) and then continues business as usual. ;)

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well they are kind of asking for it when I can easily find entire episodes of series and they make money from the act. I fail to see the need for the :mad: face.
Just how does YouTube make money, Dino? ;)

[Dis]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I can't wait until youtube moves it's servers to the Democratic Republic of Congo (or some such place) and then continues business as usual. ;)

or Dubai ;)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Doddler
Why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot..MY CD purchases peaked when Napster was around.. I don't think they give a crap about that. It's the fact you can find entire episodes of series and in some cases movies there that raises their ire.

[Kuciwalker]

And Google, also?

edit: this was supposed to be a response to Oerdin, 4 posts up... xpost * 4?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Just how does YouTube make money, Dino? ;) Advertising revenue.

[-Jrabbit]

They deliver eyeballs. More eyeballs, more ad revenue.

I've been waiting for this lawsuit. :b:

[Kuciwalker]

My question: doesn't the DMCA effectively give Youtube immunity from this sort of lawsuit so long as they respond promptly to DMCA takedown notices?

[-Jrabbit]

It's the shifting of burden for patrolling the site that's at issue here. Willingness to comply is nice, but the responsibility for copyright enforcement on a site they own, would seem to be YouTube's responsibility.

And with Google's deep pockets, they are an excellent target.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Advertising revenue.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but...don't you need advertisements to make ad revenue? :confused:

[snoopy369]

But, doesn't the existence of the DMCA imply that the responsibility is on the copyright owner? IE, if the law says, "You must take down any infringing content if the owner requests it", then doesn't that imply that it's not a violation to have the content on the site as long as it's taken down as requested?

[-Jrabbit]

Revenue model

Before being bought by Google, YouTube stated that its business model is advertising-based. Some industry commentators have speculated that YouTube's running costs — specifically the bandwidth required — may be as high as US$1 million per-month,[26] thereby fuelling criticisms that the company, like many internet start-ups, did not have a viably implemented business model. Advertisements were launched on the site beginning in March 2006. In April, YouTube started using Google AdSense. YouTube subsequently stopped using AdSense. Given its traffic levels, video streams and pageviews, some have calculated that YouTube's potential revenues could be in the millions per month.[27]

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

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but...don't you need advertisements to make ad revenue? :confused:

I suspect a lot of the above-mentioned deals with CBS, Universal, etc., involve those companies paying YouTube money... things like Adult Swim getting placement right next to the video cost a ton of money i'm sure, and using Google's adwords algorithms to place those videos next to related user videos should be worth a lot too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youtube
Sweet deal, guys, but why don't you go to http://www.youtube.com

Do you see advertising? Yes or no.

Then revisit the assertion that they are <b>making money</b> (:rolleyes: ) via advertising, considering they are <b>losing money</b> and there are currently <b>no ads to be found</b> on YouTube.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
But, doesn't the existence of the DMCA imply that the responsibility is on the copyright owner? IE, if the law says, "You must take down any infringing content if the owner requests it", then doesn't that imply that it's not a violation to have the content on the site as long as it's taken down as requested?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#DMCA_Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

That's the purpose of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

[-Jrabbit]

I saw a small banner ad for a movie last time I was there, right above the main video screen. But nothing like I expected. I rarely go to YouTube.

More wikiality on YouTube copyright issues:
Copyright infringement

YouTube policy does not allow content to be uploaded by anyone not permitted by United States copyright law to do so, and the company frequently removes uploaded infringing content. Nonetheless, a large amount of it continues to be uploaded. Generally, unless the copyright holder reports them, YouTube only discovers these videos via indications within the YouTube community through self-policing. The primary way in which YouTube identifies the content of a video is through the search terms that uploaders associate with clips. Some users have taken to creating alternative words as search terms to be entered when uploading specific type of files (similar to the deliberate misspelling of band names on MP3 filesharing networks). For a short time, members could also report one another. The service offers a flagging feature, intended as a means for reporting questionable content, including that which might constitute copyright infringement. However, the feature can be susceptible to abuse; for a time, some users were flagging other users' original content for copyright violations, purely out of spite. YouTube proceeded to remove copyright infringement from the list of offenses flaggable by members.

Hollywood remains divided on YouTube, as "'[t]he marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it.'"[28]

Content owners are not just targeting YouTube for copyright infringements on the site, but they are also targeting third party websites that link to infringing content on YouTube and other video sharing sites. For example QuickSilverScreen vs. Fox[29] Daily Episodes vs. Fox[30] and Columbia vs. Slashfilm.[31] The liability of linking remains a grey area with cases for and against. The law in the US currently leans towards website owners being liable for infringing links[32] although they are often protected by the DMCA providing they take down infringing content when issued with a takedown notice. However, a recent court ruling in the US found Google not to be liable for linking to infringing content (Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc.).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Sweet deal, guys, but why don't you go to http://www.youtube.com

Do you see advertising? Yes or no.

Then revisit the assertion that they are <b>making money</b> (:rolleyes: ) via advertising, considering they are <b>losing money</b> and there are currently <b>no ads to be found</b> on YouTube.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but if you read my post you'd know that I care not for your comment given that I didn't suggest you would see traditional ads :)

When I went (just a few minutes ago) to www.youtube.com (which has to be the least visited portal page as a percentage of total domain visits of any major site on the net), then clicked on an actual *gasp* video, what did I see? Just to the right of the video - where my eyes would naturally go - several links to adultswim.com and a link to a video or two of TV shows from that site.

That's the ad money for YouTube. That, and preferential placing for video clips.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#DMCA_Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

That's the purpose of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

So I wonder what the likelihood of this lawsuit ending in a Viacom victory then? Or is it just an effectively political move intended to get Google/YouTube to take them more seriously?

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
When I went (just a few minutes ago) to www.youtube.com (which has to be the least visited portal page as a percentage of total domain visits of any major site on the net), then clicked on an actual *gasp* video, what did I see? Just to the right of the video - where my eyes would naturally go - several links to adultswim.com and a link to a video or two of TV shows from that site.
Hmm, all I see is more YouTube videos to the right...

Where's the ads?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So I wonder what the likelihood of this lawsuit ending in a Viacom victory then? Or is it just an effectively political move intended to get Google/YouTube to take them more seriously?

No idea. Presumably Viacom's lawyers think they have grounds for a suit regardless.

[snoopy369]

Um, here...

I also am not sure what "Director Videos" are, but they feel like subscriber and/or paid videos.

[Asher]

That's not an ad, buddy...that's the description of the video...

[Kuciwalker]

He's talking about the video itself.

[snoopy369]

Yet somehow obviously paid videos end up in that spot on a regular basis, and the videos on the front page of youtube are largely from obviously paid sponsors...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He's talking about the video itself.

Thank you :)

[Asher]

Content sharing agreements != advertising.

In fact, I'm sure the NHL's deal is identical to their deal with NBC...that is, neither party pays anybody for it. The NHL benefits from increased exposure and YouTube benefits from more unique visitors.

[snoopy369]

Perhaps you have a link to their contract then? :)

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Yet somehow obviously paid videos end up in that spot on a regular basis, and the videos on the front page of youtube are largely from obviously paid sponsors...
:confused:

WTF are you talking about?

1) The NHL does not pay YouTube at all. Do your research.
2) There are no videos at all in "that spot", it's the info area for the currently viewed area which is an NHL game I clicked on
3) HTF do you figure "obviously paid sponsors"? Look at these...

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Perhaps you have a link to their contract then? :)
http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-newswire15nov15,1,3572722.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-sports&ctrack=1&cset=true

NHL, YouTube reach video agreement
Greg Johnson, Lance Pugmire, From Times Staff and Wire Reports
November 15, 2006

The NHL will upload game highlights directly onto YouTube's website as part of a broader agreement that is designed to help the league police — and profit from — hockey-related video that appears online.

The agreement that will be announced today also promises the NHL a share of revenue generated by online advertising that appears on web pages with hockey-related video.

The agreement mirrors a previous YouTube deal covering sports content provided by CBS. Both deals include the use of a new technology that makes it easier for copyright holders to identify and protect their material. At present, sports leagues, Hollywood studios and other businesses must comb the Internet to find their copyrighted material and then demand that it be taken down.

"The NHL agreement is our first with the major sports leagues, but we also have some other exciting conversations going on with other leagues," said Kevin Donahue, vice president of content for YouTube. "The NHL clearly understands the value of the community factor on YouTube. This is designed to help … connect with their fans."

As I said, this mirrors the NHL's deal with NBC. The NHL is not paying YouTube a dime.

[b etor]

lol nonYouTuber LOL

B etor does not watch TV, she watches YouTube.

I saw the entire Kyle XY 1st season [which was shown last summer] in like august.

[Asher]

Kyle XY. :b:

The actor is gay in real life. Have you seen his appearance on Kathy Grifiths show?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Content sharing agreements != advertising.

In fact, I'm sure the NHL's deal is identical to their deal with NBC...that is, neither party pays anybody for it. The NHL benefits from increased exposure and YouTube benefits from more unique visitors.

Regardless, it's advertising. You said yourself: "the NHL benefits from increased exposure."

[DinoDoc]

There seems to be a big ad on the front page of youtube atm.

[Kuciwalker]

ad·ver·tise
–verb (used with object)
1. to announce or praise (a product, service, etc.) in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it: to advertise a new brand of toothpaste.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Regardless, it's advertising. You said yourself: "the NHL benefits from increased exposure."
It's not advertising. People see the NHL videos only when they click on them, they're not shown like adwords, banner ads, flash ads, etc.

By your logic any time something is for public viewing it is an advertisement.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
There seems to be a big ad on the front page of youtube atm.
I don't see one?

[Kuciwalker]

When a TV channel shows clips from its own shows on its own channel, is that advertising? (Yes.) Same deal here.

[Kuciwalker]

The purpose of those videos (from the NHL's point of view) is to get people to watch NHL games (presumably not just on Youtube, either). Advertising.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
When a TV channel shows clips from its own shows on its own channel, is that advertising? (Yes.) Same deal here.
Absolutely not, that's a retarded analogy. The only way to view the NHL videos is to look for them and view them, while TV spots for shows on the same network are shown INSTEAD of the desired service, which makes it an advertisement.

Are you seriously saying the NHL on NBC is a 3 hour advertisement? :lol:

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The purpose of those videos (from the NHL's point of view) is to get people to watch NHL games (presumably not just on Youtube, either). Advertising.
So the NHL on NBC is a 3 hour advertisement on Saturday TV.

That is a rather unique point of view for somebody with no other recourse in an otherwise one-sided asskicking in an argument.

[b etor]

Originally posted by Asher
Kyle XY. :b:

The actor is gay in real life. Have you seen his appearance on Kathy Grifiths show?

no. and i can't find it on youtube :(

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't see one?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Absolutely not, that's a retarded analogy. The only way to view the NHL videos is to look for them and view them

Not when links to them are shown when you view other videos, or on the main page :) and regardless, the same applies to the classified ads in the newspaper.

while TV spots for shows on the same network are shown INSTEAD of the desired service, which makes it an advertisement.

Google ads aren't shown instead of the desired service, they're shown alongside it, but they're still ads.

Are you seriously saying the NHL on NBC is a 3 hour advertisement? :lol:

Presumably, that's the product. (Which itself is supported by advertising... turtles all the way down.)

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Hey, so it is. :b:

There you go, a single advertisement (see Kuci, that is an advertisement...) that I'm sure makes YouTube billions of dollars to justify this lawsuit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not when links to them are shown when you view other videos, or on the main page :)
Show me your frontpage that has NHL videos on there...

and regardless, the same applies to the classified ads in the newspaper.
Yes, which are called as such because you pay to put them in the paper. :shame:

Google ads aren't shown instead of the desired service, they're shown alongside it, but they're still ads.
Don't you try to play semantics with me, Kuci, because you are simply outclassed.

Any space used on a webpage is shown instead of desired content.

Presumably, that's the product. (Which itself is supported by advertising... turtles all the way down.)
You're an idiot. ;)

The NHL and NBC have an agreement identical to the NHL and YouTube. One can't be an advertisement if the other is not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
There you go, a single advertisement (see Kuci, that is an advertisement...) that I'm sure makes YouTube billions of dollars to justify this lawsuit.

I'd like to note that even without an income stream Youtube would be liable (or not, in which case it's not liable now). I'm not sure why the emphasis on ad revenues when it's a copyright violation either way.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

So the NHL on NBC is a 3 hour advertisement on Saturday TV.

That is a rather unique point of view for somebody with no other recourse in an otherwise one-sided asskicking in an argument.

Huh?

NHL on YouTube is intended to encourage fan interest in the NHL, to get people to share videos that cause them to then go watch NHL games in person and on TV, and presumably are placed as links on other sports videos' pages. Ads.

That's why "The marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it". (http://www.cinematical.com/2007/03/10/hollywood-and-youtubes-relationship-on-the-rocks/)

I did some searching around, and YouTube in 2006 only made $15m in revenues - obviously a pathetically small sum, and probably about 1/6 of the costs of running the servers by the end of the year - but that number will undoubtedly grow as Google:
1. Makes more deals with companies that provide content (Google guaranteed $500m in ad revenue to CBS during their negotiations, for example)

2. More ad placement, particularly pre-clip ads
And presumably other things that Google isn't telling us about yet :)

I'm not going to argue that YouTube makes money right now. But saying they have no advertising at all is just dumb. Otherwise where did that $15m come from? Add to that the fact that online ads are currently selling out months in advance - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/16/yahoo-aol-msn-selling-o_n_10729.html - and there's no question that the ad money will come when they choose to pursue it aggressively.

[DanS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That's the ad money for YouTube. That, and preferential placing for video clips.

The front page of YouTube costs $80,000 a day.

[DanS]

Anyway, I'm guessing that this lawsuit will be unsuccessful. This is basically a shakedown of Google. Google needs to stand strong. :b:

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Huh?

NHL on YouTube is intended to encourage fan interest in the NHL, to get people to share videos that cause them to then go watch NHL games in person and on TV, and presumably are placed as links on other sports videos' pages. Ads.
The same rationale is why the NHL struck the same deal with NBC. So you consider the NHL on NBC a 3 hour ad as well? Join Kuci in the idiot boat.

I'm not going to argue that YouTube makes money right now. But saying they have no advertising at all is just dumb. Otherwise where did that $15m come from? Add to that the fact that online ads are currently selling out months in advance - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/16/yahoo-aol-msn-selling-o_n_10729.html - and there's no question that the ad money will come when they choose to pursue it aggressively.
It has content which can be paid for for the purpose of advertising, yes. Such content is exceedingly rare to the point of being semantics, as your revenue numbers show.

And if you think it only costs 90 million dollars a year to run YouTube...well, I think it says a lot about why this was so easy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Show me your frontpage that has NHL videos on there...

It has other youtube videos, presumably it could have them. I personally don't visit youtube very often so I won't speak to the specifics of it's interface beyond the screenshots in this thread.

Yes, which are called as such because you pay to put them in the paper. :shame:

Were they free they'd still be advertisements. I'll cite the second definition of advertise (from the same source as the first earlier):

2. to give information to the public about; announce publicly in a newspaper, on radio or television, etc.: to advertise a reward.

Don't you try to play semantics with me, Kuci, because you are simply outclasses.

Any space used on a webpage is shown instead of desired content.[/q

[q]You're an idiot. ;)

More, I don't care about your silly provincial games enough to follow their deals :)

The NHL and NBC have an agreement identical to the NHL and YouTube. One can't be an advertisement if the other is not.

Something can be both an advertisement and a product. If I buy a Nike shirt it's both.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Any space used on a webpage is shown instead of desired content.


Cutting out the ad hominem attacks and you get to this crucial point: the value of YouTube as an advertising medium is precisely this, that it marries advertising with desired content.

How many commercials are hosted on YouTube and get thousands of views? Views that are not just people watching a TV show and turning their heads away during the break, but specifically clicking on a link that lets them see the commercial?

YouTube may not make a fortune on these ads yet (not sure if it makes money from many of them, really, since most are user-posted at this point) but the potential is there. Nowhere else on the internet or really anywhere do people intentionally view ads and similar content - content that encourages the viewer to do something that generates revenue for the content provider, either directly or indirectly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
The front page of YouTube costs $80,000 a day.

That's got to be far less than it costs to serve up each day.

[Kuciwalker]

Are these entire games, or short clips on youtube? (re: NHL)

[DanS]

Of course. On the other hand, YouTube doesn't make much money now. Probably loses lots of money.

You've got to pay that staff to respond to all those DMCA takedown notices, after all. ;)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It has other youtube videos, presumably it could have them.
Strong argument -- because 12-year old Laura can have her video weblog about boy cooties on the frontpage, the NHL videos could be there too.

Were they free they'd still be advertisements. I'll cite the second definition of advertise (from the same source as the first earlier):
You're intentionally quoting the one dictionary which doesn't use the word "paid". That's funny, and not predictable at all.

There's a huge difference here that you really should be capable of realizing. One is a case of making an "announcement" or providing "information", as per your definition -- one is an ad. The other is providing the content for free, such as, well, articles in free newspapers. Those articles are not advertisements.

Something can be both an advertisement and a product. If I buy a Nike shirt it's both.
Therefore any sport is a walking advertisement?

I appreciate your attempt to Agathon-ize this thread, but go away if you want to play "academic filosofer".

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Cutting out the ad hominem attacks and you get to this crucial point: the value of YouTube as an advertising medium is precisely this, that it marries advertising with desired content.
I understand the value of YouTube as an advertising medium.

I also know so far it's been a colossal failure as such. :)

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
When a TV channel shows clips from its own shows on its own channel, is that advertising? (Yes.) Same deal here.

Bad example. Technically, the FCC (and the broadcast industry) define that as a Promotional Announcement.

It does get murky, but promos are not considered to be advertising. The amount of advertising is capped, so all programming must be tracked and logged, including its type (entertainment, news, sports, advertising, promo, public service, religious, etc.).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Strong argument -- because 12-year old Laura can have her video weblog about boy cooties on the frontpage, the NHL videos could be there too.

Doesn't the front page have preferred positions?

You're intentionally quoting the one dictionary which doesn't use the word "paid". That's funny, and not predictable at all.

I picked the first definition on dictionary.com. Sue me.

There's a huge difference here that you really should be capable of realizing. One is a case of making an "announcement" or providing "information", as per your definition -- one is an ad. The other is providing the content for free, such as, well, articles in free newspapers. Those articles are not advertisements.

They can be; it's called astroturfing. Content can be an ad.

Therefore any sport is a walking advertisement?

Most of them are, yes. Don't hockey stadiums have ads all over them?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are these entire games, or short clips on youtube? (re: NHL)
Why the hell are you even trying to argue with me if you know nothing about
1) The NHL
2) The NHL's business
3) Youtube
4) The NHL on Youtube

???

[snoopy369]

Look, Asher, you can continue your troll if you want. The rest of us have moved on :)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Bad example. Technically, the FCC (and the broadcast industry) define that as a Promotional Announcement.

It does get murky, but promos are not considered to be advertising. The amount of advertising is capped, so all programming must be tracked and logged, including its type (entertainment, news, sports, advertising, promo, public service, religious, etc.).

The industry's self-deceptions don't concern me :p

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Doesn't the front page have preferred positions?
No.

They can be; it's called astroturfing. Content can be an ad.
So every time you pick up a free newspaper on the subway for the articles, do you consider these articles ads? It's the same concept.

The NHL is providing content to YouTube to use as it pleases, and it hopes to make money by using all of its unique visitors for advertising. This is the exact same business arrangement that freebie newspapers use as well. The articles are not advertisements.

Most of them are, yes. Don't hockey stadiums have ads all over them?
I'm talking about the inherent nature of spectator sports, which I thought was clear.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Look, Asher, you can continue your troll if you want. The rest of us have moved on :)
Some of you have, Kuciwalker likes getting whipped.

You're old enough to know when you can't take it. ;)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
So every time you pick up a free newspaper on the subway for the articles, do you consider these articles ads? It's the same concept.

If the article is promoting something, then yes.

I'm talking about the inherent nature of spectator sports, which I thought was clear.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. In the end, personal attendence at a sporting event isn't advertising (for sporting events) because you've already bought the product they want you to ultimately buy. It is advertising for other products (on the billboards in the stadium).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If the article is promoting something, then yes.
They're just content, just like the NHL videos are content. There's nothing being promoted other than showing what happened (like a news piece...)

I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Yes, it was clearly over your head. I apologize for thinking you were being more insightful than you were.

[DinoDoc]

This looks like a job for Ming.

[Kuciwalker]

A youtube search for NHL only turned up short clips (a few minutes long). Where are the full-length games? If there aren't any, it's definately advertising because you have to go elsewhere for the full product.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A youtube search for NHL only turned up short clips (a few minutes long). Where are the full-length games? If there aren't any, it's definately advertising because you have to go elsewhere for the full product.
You mean another google product?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7500865857658339952&q=team%3Aflames&hl=en

It's my understanding that YouTube currently has technical limitations on content length, which Google Video does not have.

[Kuciwalker]

Sure. Or the NBC.

[Asher]

So in other words, your entire argument has whittled down to the NHL is advertising on YouTube -- despite not paying them a dime -- because they have to use a competing Google product to view the full game due to YouTube's technical restrictions on content length?

That's awesome.

[b etor]

:lol:

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The industry's self-deceptions don't concern me :p

First, the definition is supplied by the US government, which through the FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S. Program types have been defined and in place for over half a century.

Second (and more relevant to how bad an example it was), the discussion here is about advertising revenue. You can't generate revenue from self-contained activities.

The fact that you consider anything with a logo to be "advertising" is a valid opinion, but clearly not relevant to this discussion.

[Asher]

Originally posted by b etor
no. and i can't find it on youtube :(
Here's him as the gay pool boy on Entourage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsBT9lsC_o

Here's him out of character on Griffith's show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwho8GZyKK8

[DanS]

Interesting article from the WSJ on this. Amazing how the DMCA was viewed so unfavorably when it was signed into law, but is looking better with age.

Viacom v. Google Could Shape Digital Future
Lawsuit Hinges on 1998 Act
Protecting Net Copyrights;
Does YouTube Qualify?
By KEVIN J. DELANEY and MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG
March 14, 2007; Page B1

The $1 billion question prompted by Viacom Inc.'s suing Google Inc. yesterday is how a 1998 law that was supposed to retrofit copyright protection for the digital future applies in the YouTube age.

While the suit was expected -- Viacom in February publicly accused Google of copyright infringement -- it raises the stakes in the running scuffle between Google's YouTube and media companies over copyright clips posted by users to the video-sharing site without the consent of the clips' owners. In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, Viacom seeks damages and an injunction against Google to stop the alleged infringement. The suit accuses YouTube of using technology to "willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale ... and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well."

Since the video-copyright spat intensified last year, YouTube has claimed it qualifies for protection from liability because it removes clips from its site when copyright holders ask. Such a procedure is outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, a landmark law that updated intellectual-property rights for the Internet and laid the groundwork for the widespread hosting and searching of content originating from ordinary users. The DMCA also contained important so-called safe-harbor clauses, provisions designed to protect access providers, search engines, Web-hosting services and others from liability for copyright claims if they met several conditions.
Viacom sues Google and its YouTube unit, claiming copyright infringement. The suit seeks $1 billion in damages.

But now some legal experts say there is little consensus or precedent on how that protection applies to video-sharing sites like YouTube. The safe-harbor dispute could hinge on several key issues, such as the extent to which YouTube has direct knowledge of copyright clips posted on its site without permission and whether it profits directly from them.

The safe-harbor issue is at the core of several other pending copyright cases, including Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group's suit against News Corp.'s MySpace.

Some lawyers say court decisions may have broad ramifications. "The DMCA safe harbor covers a lot of businesses, and it's hard to see how you could go after YouTube without threatening all of the others," says Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

The Viacom suit comes after failed discussions between the media company and Google over licensing content such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "Laguna Beach" for use on YouTube and indemnification of Google from copyright suits. Those talks fell apart by late last year amid disagreement over a number of issues, including how much Google might pay, say people familiar with the matter. Viacom in February publicly accused Google of profiting from copyright infringement; Viacom requested that YouTube remove more than 100,000 Viacom clips from its site.

Viacom says it decided to file suit because its request last month that YouTube remove Viacom clips failed to keep them off the site. As recently as yesterday, one of the most viewed videos on YouTube was one from "The Colbert Report," owned by Viacom. The media company says it spends "tens of thousands of dollars" a month searching for its programming on YouTube so it can request its removal.
[A message notifies YouTube users that a clip of Viacom's 'Colbert Report' has been removed.]
A message notifies YouTube users that a clip of Viacom's 'Colbert Report' has been removed.

"It's hard for us to believe that [Google] has any desire to protect our content," said Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman.

In its suit, Viacom alleges that the availability of copyright works on YouTube "is the cornerstone of [its] business plan." Other major media companies are talking tough but appear less inclined to follow Viacom in filing a lawsuit, partly because they have existing partnerships with Google that they don't want to jeopardize.

"Time is up for YouTube," said Time Warner Inc. General Counsel Paul Cappuccio. "It's no longer permissible for them to have unauthorized copyrighted material on there."

But Time Warner, which has a deal with Google through its AOL unit, believes companies should reach a compromise. "We are still of the opinion that we can negotiate a business solution with YouTube that will efficiently identify and filter out unauthorized copyrighted works while also allowing us to license copyrighted works to them for a share of revenue," Mr. Cappuccio said.

Many media executives think that the Viacom suit is part of an effort by the company to pressure Google into working out such a deal. Mr. Dauman has pledged to double Viacom's digital revenue to $500 million this year, a goal that a YouTube pact would make it easier for him to reach.

Google lawyers contend that there is little ambiguity in the safe-harbor clauses' protections for YouTube. "It is a relatively clear statute, and Web hosts in general have been confident their activity is not something that will subject them to copyright liability as long as they comply with the notice and takedown procedures outlined in the act," said Alexander Macgillivray, a Google associate general counsel.

When the DMCA became law in 1998, it was an earlier age of the Internet where the principal legal preoccupations related to access providers, like AOL, and hosts of online forums, Web sites and simple search engines. But now with ubiquitous high-speed consumer Internet connections fueling an explosion of digital content and the growth of sites that host photos, video and music uploaded by consumers, the application of the DMCA safe harbor is in dispute.

In its complaint, Viacom signals clearly its belief that YouTube oversteps the protected activities: YouTube goes beyond just hosting users' Web sites and "itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance and public display."

"These provisions were tailored for AOL and their like because these services couldn't know everything that was going on in their chat rooms," said Mike Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "YouTube is a different business." Google supporters say YouTube's actions simply reflect the evolution of what an Internet company does and that protections intended for Web hosts in general should apply.

Legal experts say the main points of contention also include how much knowledge the Internet companies have of specific examples of infringement. Viacom in its suit contends it can be impossible to look at YouTube without seeing specific examples of infringement, copyright video clips uploaded by users.

Mr. Macgillivray declined to comment on that, saying it was one of the issues under litigation. But the video site has in the past contended that it doesn't examine individual videos and that it is often nearly impossible to know whether a video is infringing or not, since media companies sometimes upload the clips themselves. Google has said it plans to introduce automated systems for identifying copyright content.

Under one interpretation of the safe-harbor clauses, the video sites lose their protection when they start making money from the infringement, which is arguably happening as they begin to add advertising. Google and YouTube "profit handsomely from the infringement," Viacom says in its complaint.

YouTube has anticipated such an issue and doesn't display ads on pages where consumers can actually view videos unless it has an agreement with the content owner. But advertising does appear on pages listing results users see when they search for videos on YouTube.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The fact that you consider anything with a logo to be "advertising" is a valid opinion, but clearly not relevant to this discussion.

Neither is whether Youtube gets any advertising revenue, since they are equally liable either way.

edit: nevermind, apparently it makes a difference under the DMCA.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
So in other words, your entire argument has whittled down to the NHL is advertising on YouTube -- despite not paying them a dime -- because they have to use a competing Google product to view the full game due to YouTube's technical restrictions on content length?

How many people on Youtube know the full version is available on Google Video rather than just on NBC?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: DanS's article: who called it? ;)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How many people on Youtube know the full version is available on Google Video rather than just on NBC?
It's not "just on NBC"...NHL video is available on dozens of networks and many online sites.

It's not advertising, it's NHL content that YouTube is using to gain unique visitors so it can potentially make money from advertising. There is a difference...

[Kuciwalker]

If it's just shortened clips then it's advertising for full NHL games.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If it's just shortened clips then it's advertising for full NHL games.
Have you ever seen anything as long as an NHL game on YouTube?

Who would ever watch the game highlights on YouTube and then go sit through the hour-and-a-half long game after? You seriously think this is the intent?

You're so clueless about this whole thing....

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Have you ever seen anything as long as an NHL game on YouTube? I have seen a 83 minute movie there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Have you ever seen anything as long as an NHL game on YouTube?

Not quite, but I know anything long has shitty quality because of the 100MB cap.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Who would ever watch the game highlights on YouTube and then go sit through the hour-and-a-half long game after? You seriously think this is the intent?

I don't know, why would anyone watch hockey in the first place?

[Drogue]

Guys (ie. Kuci and Asher), if you want to discuss what is or isn't an advert, please start your own thread. The debate just seems a little silly to me though, as however you define it, if it's not paying money to Youtube, it's not a source of revenue, which is the issue with making money.

Please keep this thread for discussing the topic.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't see one? perhaps youtube cant sell ad space for canadians :)

[Kuciwalker]

Drogue, MarkG is discussing the forbidding threadjack ;)

[MarkG]

here's an ad (sponsoring) from the front page...

[MarkG]

and this is another ad....

http://youtube.com/community

i'm discussing the existance of ads on youtube, not the definition of advertisement. the screenshots show ads on youtube, therefore youtube makes money on copyrighted material, therefore viacom is about to get some easy money from google....

[Asher]

Originally posted by MarkG
here's an ad (sponsoring) from the front page...
That's not a sponsorship per se, Verizon and YouTube have an agreement. Verizon permits access from their phones to YouTube, that section is for videos popular no Verizon phones.

[DanS]

Originally posted by MarkG
and this is another ad....

http://youtube.com/community

i'm discussing the existance of ads on youtube, not the definition of advertisement. the screenshots show ads on youtube, therefore youtube makes money on copyrighted material, therefore viacom is about to get some easy money from google....

The last paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article that I posted deals with this...

YouTube has anticipated such an issue and doesn't display ads on pages where consumers can actually view videos unless it has an agreement with the content owner. But advertising does appear on pages listing results users see when they search for videos on YouTube.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Asher
That's not a sponsorship per se, Verizon and YouTube have an agreement. Verizon permits access from their phones to YouTube, that section is for videos popular no Verizon phones. so i guess you can find the corresponding news article saying that youtube doesnt get any $ from constantly displaying the verizon logo on the home page

[The Mad Monk]

Asher, the top of the main video in your attachment has a small tab with "adblock" on it. Perhaps that's why you're not seeing ads?

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Asher, the top of the main video in your attachment has a small tab with "adblock" on it. Perhaps that's why you're not seeing ads?
That adblock thing appears for all Flash elements.

I didn't see ads because I never look at anything other than videos. The videos have no ads.

[Kuciwalker]

That adblock thing appears for all Flash elements.

He knows that; it's an indicator you have adblock running and therefore might not be seeing all the elements on the page.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MarkG
so i guess you can find the corresponding news article saying that youtube doesnt get any $ from constantly displaying the verizon logo on the home page
Don't know of that, but I think it's an odd assumption to make that Verizon has to pay for it.

Verizon, after all, is using the YouTube logo as part of their marketing and tapping a whole new market for YouTube. It's a beneficial agreement for both, I doubt any money changed hands.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
I didn't see ads because I never look at anything other than videos. The videos have no ads. How do you miss ads like this?

[MarkG]

apparently asher is in denial...

[b etor]

There are only ads when you are searching for videos, but because you are so intent on finding that video you do not notice. :nod:

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by b etor
There are only ads when you are searching for videos, but because you are so intent on finding that video you do not notice. :nod: I'm sorry but that ninja one came with sound. Pissed me off.

[b etor]

Yes, I dislike that one as well.
OGame had a mosquito one for a little while. I hated that one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How do you miss ads like this?
How do you miss that that is not a video?