Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

YouTube Removed 30,000 Japanese Videos from Site 265

Grooves writes "YouTube has been asked to remove almost 30,000 videos from their site, according to reports. The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) found 29,549 videos on the site that had materials contained in them that where not authorized by rights holders. From the article, 'A spokesperson for that organization said that they were considering petitioning YouTube for a better screening process. Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.' Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Removed 30,000 Japanese Videos from Site

Comments Filter:
  • by purpledinoz ( 573045 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @10:55AM (#16516239)
    That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture.
  • by daeg ( 828071 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @10:56AM (#16516261)
    Seriously. Did anyone, including Google, not see this coming?
  • I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tygerstripes ( 832644 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @10:57AM (#16516277)
    they were considering petitioning YouTube for a better screening process.
    By "better process", do you mean, I dunno, having one?
  • Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fernandoh26 ( 963204 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @10:58AM (#16516283) Homepage
    Why is this news? YouTube says if you notice a video that is hosted without permission of copyright holders to let them know and they will remove it, and this is just one japanese corporation using that policy?

    Tonight @ 11: My bank stops sending me paper statements upon my request! SHOCKING!
  • by jakoz ( 696484 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:00AM (#16516311)
    Can anyone really be surprised?

    Suddenly YouTube is worth a bundle of cash. We all knew it would happen.

    All in all, I'd say this is a very gentle way of saying to the **AA that we're going to try to do the right thing.

    On second thoughts, they already would have said that in private discussions, behind closed doors.

    This is the way to prepare the rest of us. Then it won't seem so bad when they come down like a ton of bricks on the US infringements. It won't hurt their market so much.
  • police (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bazorg ( 911295 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:01AM (#16516319) Homepage
    some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves

    And exactly whose job should that be?

  • Get Over It. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <> on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:04AM (#16516355)
    Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.

    As opposed to the print world, or the spoken world, where... They need to find and notify the authorities of copyright infringement.

    I understand the feeling that 'I shouldn't need to do this' that brings up that statement. But it has always been the copyright holder's problem to identify infractions. YouTube is no different in that regard, besides that it brings a lot of creations together in one place.

  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:04AM (#16516357) Homepage Journal

    The power of copyright does not include forcing an obligation onto governments or common carriers to search or police the content. The power of copyright gives the owner a right to take down specific infringing works.

    Every scribble, photo, sculpted shape or soundbite you create is copyrighted as soon as you create it. This goes for everybody within the copyright-abiding hemisphere, which obviously means that the number of copyrighted works outnumbers the population by a very large factor. Clearly, not all rights-holders are trying to enforce those rights against every transgression, thankfully. Grouse all you want, but if you own a copyright, you are the only party who should be obligated to do anything about it.

    Some carriers might impose a licensing check before submissions can be completed, or they might impose occasional purges like this even without the copyright owners having to complain, but the vast majority of carriers do not (and should not) impose any such hurdle to allowing their users to publish. This is the central promise of public broadcasting and collaboration by network.

    If every sheet of paper needed permission before it could hold an idea in ink, we would still be scratching words in the dirt and looking over our shoulders.

  • by giorgiofr ( 887762 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:05AM (#16516375)
    I remember a time when there was a piece of software that allowed people to share multimedia files. It was great, you could post legal files that didn't have copyright issues

    In what bizarro universe did this happen?

    Just wait youtube will go the way of p2p

    You mean it will make up more than 50% of internet traffic at any given time? Not bad for a start.
  • They looked... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by doit3d ( 936293 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:13AM (#16516509)
    ...the gift horse in the mouth then kicked it squarely in the balls just like the *AA's have been doing for years. They have just kicked the best free advertisement they could have had to the curb. Granted, the material may be copyrighted, but the quality is extremely poor. The material is seen by persons who then sometimes seek out and want to purchase higher quality videos/music to support various forums of artistic expression. Nice way to shut out customers that they could have gotten for free. I guess they must be preparing to earn their money through lawsuits rather than through a legitimate business transaction which wins over customers. Money seems to be one helluva drug, seeing how it blinds upper corporate echelon.
  • by GogglesPisano ( 199483 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:15AM (#16516543)
    some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves
    Yeah, that's tough. I mean, corporate copyright holders have spent millions buying politicians to protect their cash streams with the full force of the federal government for 120 years. Clearly it's unreasonable to expect them to stop counting their money and actually expend some effort on their own behalf. Everyone else should be doing it for them!
  • I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jackharrer ( 972403 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:15AM (#16516545)
    As always they want to remove everything instead of thinking first. What kind of quality does YouTube have? Sh*t, everybody knows. Those videos should be classified as promotional material. Instead removing them, they should lower the resolution (as if there's need for it already) and audio quality (look previous brackets) and add some intro like 'If you want to see it in proper way - Buy It!'. That would be much better than removing it.

    Best part is that this process can be easily automated so videos marked as copyrighted by MPIA or similar can be automatically 'copyright marked'. That would create a lot of revenue for artists and a lot of fun for ordinary people.

    Shame that they cannot think in this way. Create - not destroy!
  • Re:Get Over It. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:15AM (#16516547) Homepage
    Exactly, how is YouTube supposed to know that any particular video being uploaded contains copyright infringements ? Even if they had someone visually checking each video that person cannot be expected to know of and recognise every single copyrighted piece of work in the world which may be incorporated into an uploaded video.

    The only people who absolutely know that a video contains copyrighted materials are the copyright owners and in this case they have made the identification, YouTube have removed the content and the world is as it should be.

    The company involved can complain as much as they like that their copyrighted material should not be distributed in this manner but there is simply no sensible way in which the system can work other than the way it does. Perhaps if you could "fingerprint" every millisecond of video with a unique identifier which could be checked against a copyright database then that would change but I don't think there is any such system in place today.
  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tygerstripes ( 832644 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:17AM (#16516569)
    Is this anything like the Haars Tranform mapping thing mentioned in an earlier article []? I can't tell from the linked article.
  • by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:18AM (#16516577)
    Adult Swim aside, without exposure like this there is little chance of American folks becoming fans. Heck, I've been using YouTube for the last few days to help buy Anime (check for popularity and samples) for my kids and myself for Christmas. Bad move.
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:20AM (#16516597) Homepage Journal
    The public fansub groups and things have always been generally good at no longer making things available that were legitimately released. I imagine that's what keeps the goodwill up between them and the producers. However, the digital and filesharing stuff seems to spell doom for that sort of thing.

    *cue the "memory lane" ripple dissolve effect with harp strumming*

    I remember back when fansubs were scratchy Nth-generation videotapes, converted from Japanese videotapes or recordings from television, with subs added via the chunky digital fonts that ancient camcorders used to caption 1980s wedding videos with. Fan groups in colleges and stuff swapped them quietly amongst themselves. It was usually good enough for viewing the story, but only just, and buying the official release would be a huge leap forward quality-wise. Fansubs weren't competing with the official releases then, you still had a reason to buy the real thing. Nowadays, they're often pretty indistinguishable from a file ripped from a brand new DVD, you can download a copy with the a/v quality just as perfect as the original digital Japanese DVD or TV signal.
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by falcon5768 ( 629591 ) <> on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:24AM (#16516649) Journal
    Fansubs (of unlicensed anime), and AMVs have generaly been considered O.K. by the Japanese companies that hold the rights to these shows.
    What the hell dope you been smoking? They have never been ok with them EVER. Its just in the past they never prosecuted them because they had no plans to sell the shows here. Now just about all of their stuff has deals lined up so its in their best interests (and the company who bought the rights.)

    The idea that they where ok with it is a bogus excuse the fansubbers have used for years to justify them breaking international copyright laws. Doesnt mean they where right though.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:26AM (#16516673)
    to look after someone else's copyrighted works?
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by British ( 51765 ) <> on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:31AM (#16516747) Homepage Journal
    Heh. If any of the 30K videos removed were AMVs, YouTube is doing the public a favor. In YouTube's early months(long before the buyout), ANY search brought up Anime crap, probably being AMVs. It polluted their search engine. Putting a song to some anime footage brings nothing original to the table.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:31AM (#16516757)
    Why is this news?

    Because, as usual, the Slashdot "editors" were hoping that you'd all work yourselves into some sort of "our rights have been violated" frenzy, which translates into MORE PAGE HITS.
  • Re:police (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:32AM (#16516767)

    Traditionally, the government's executive branch is responsible for catching law-breakers, and the judiciary for dealing with them.

    On the flip side, copyright infringement is traditionally a civil matter. Recent legislation in some jurisdictions has changed this. Perhaps this fairly recognises that the speed any damage is done today will be vastly faster than the speed of any protracted civil court proceedings, or perhaps it's because of lobbying from Big Media who want to reduce their overheads; take your pick.

    I'm not completely decided on this one, but you can certainly understand content providers feeling that the government should act against organisations who, let's be fair, basically run a business model predicated on ripping off those content providers in violation of the law.

  • Re:Get Over It. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by radish ( 98371 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:32AM (#16516775) Homepage
    All videos contain copyrighted information, as everything anyone creates is automatically copyrighted. The question is not "is this copyrighted" but "do the copyright holders give their permission for this to be posted" - which is, unfortunatly, even harder to answer.
  • by adam ( 1231 ) * on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:36AM (#16516841)
    Google is not managed by idiots. If they are going to shell out $1.6B for a commodity (even it's only $1.6B in stock and not cold, hard, cash), you can bet there was some due diligence involved. If you look at similar previous businesses-- Napster is the best that comes to mind.. Napster raked in a bunch of VC cash for Sean Fanning, and then it went down the tubes, but this was mostly as a result of failing to forsee the legal problems they would encouter. Google, no doubt, has already forseen this, and probably has developed a very robust (and hopefully flexible.. since web 2.0 is in its infancy) business model. One major difference between YouTube and Napster is that Napster was virtually 100% copyrighted (pirated) content. YouTube is probably 50% pirated content, with the other 50% being unique content (vlogs, etc) from users more interested in social networking, and I suspect in some ways these are more "valuable" users to google (in that they surf more often, are more susceptible/amenable to ads, etc). Of the pirated content, I suspect around 25-50% of the rights-owners actually "care enough" to pursue the fact that it is being exhibited on the web without royalties to them. The remainer are cellphone camera bootlegs of concerts, people singing covers of their favorite songs, etc.

    After about 30 seconds of brainstorming, I can imagine google will focus on the social networking users (I already see YouTube making huge headway against MySpace-- watching a video of someone on their profile gives LOADS more parsable clues about them than a few blurry "MySpace Angles" photos), and secondarily attempt to convince many copyright holders to PROMOTE their retail content on YouTube rather than just ask them to cease and desist. This promotion could come in the way of YouTube "premier access" videos or site area, driven by g-checkout (or whatever its name is), where users pay for individual access to videos (at $.05 a view for a 2 minute video? maybe..) or perhaps for a site-wide access on a monthly fee basis. Or this promotion could come in the way of simply trying to pursuade copyright holders to let heir heavily compressed 320x240 webvideo stay up, with blatant text links/banners to the official site or whatever. As someone who actually creates commercial video content (I make documentaries, but have directed other projects such as music videos, etc), this is a situation I am amenable to. I'd be fine with google showing excepts of my last couple of films (extreme sports stuff), with context links on the page to buy the DVD, or maybe to "jamster" type ringtone sites that sell my video ringtones (which I don't actually have, but funny story, a large distributor [rhymes with Barner Wrothers] approached us to distribute our latest film, and one of their executive's biggest sales pitches to us [this was around a yr ago] was doing video ringtones-- "they're going to be huge!"). Also, remember, even if YouTube can't turn a profit on its own, the data-mining possibilities are endess... let's say I use my YouTube account (i am logged in via cookie) to watch lots of Morrissey videos. Then I google search for "documentary." There is [hypothetically] a new documentary coming out about Morrissey's legal battles with former Smiths bandmates, and now google can serve me context ad content based on the context of not just what I searched for, but what google also know me to enjoy. The correlations that can be made by cross referencing this content are pretty friggin extensive. I am positive this hasn't escaped their attention.

    So in short, yes, everyone (including the big G) saw this coming. Expect some cool adaptations soon, I do hope.

    Sidenote: I think that there is probably an amazing documentary to be made about the goings-on inside google.. what it means to work on the campus, how google employees are treated differently than typical IT employees, how they foster innovation, how they continue to push the envelope of how to do business on the web, their expansion into china (and grappling wi
  • by stubear ( 130454 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:40AM (#16516901)
    "If every sheet of paper needed permission before it could hold an idea in ink,..."

    Copyright does not, never had, nor ever will, protect ideas. It protects the expression of ieas in a fixed medium. perdiod, full stop, end of story. Ideas cannot be locked up with copyrights, that would be the world of patents, two doors down on the left.
  • by csoto ( 220540 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:45AM (#16516993)
    As a copyright holder, it's YOUR responsibility to defend your rights. Once properly notified, an offender or facilitator (like YouTube) is obligated to take action, but "policing" is the (C) holder's problem.
  • by stubear ( 130454 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:46AM (#16517021)
    Exposure is one thing, posting entire seeeasons of episodes from TV shows is something entirely different. If this were simply a quesiton of exposure then why not put up one or two espisodes or the first 5-10 minutes of each episode with some information on when and where to watch the show? Posting copyrighted material online without consent is not about exposure or fighting the man, it's about getting shit for free, period.
  • by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:56AM (#16517185)
    That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture.

    Maybe that's why they want them removed. Could it be a secret plot by the Japanese to export only anime, but keep all the really good live action Japanese cultural related shows to themselves? It could also be that the Japanese don't mind acting fools infront of other Japanese, but by damned if they'll act a fool where non-Japanese will see it.
  • Reasonable. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @11:56AM (#16517193)
    My first thought when I heard this story was, "What does it matter to them? No one outside of Japan will ever get their programming anyway."

    But then my friend made a very good point. Youtube was sold for $1.6 billion in no small part because they attracted viewers with copyrighted programming. They certainly have made little effort in the past to block that kind of material.

    That friend has been in a similar situation where someone running a site overseas goes and essentially takes his copyrighted flash games and puts them on their site without his permission. They then lure visitors using my friend's, and other people's, creations in order to make money on advertising.

    Why Youtube was ever worth $1.6 billion is beyond me.
  • by shinma ( 106792 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:02PM (#16517267) Homepage
    You realize that the vast majority of files on Napster were not legal, and did indeed have copyright issues, don't you? It wasn't this free love hippy utopia, it was the grimy streets of Tortuga, and we were all dirty pirates.

  • Re:Licensing? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yuna49 ( 905461 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:05PM (#16517323)
    Um, because the US is not the center of the universe?

    The "licensed in the US" argument is irrelevant. These items infringe the copyrights of legitimate rights holders in another country that's also a member of WIPO. International treaties signed by the US have the force of law in the US.

  • by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <> on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:08PM (#16517375) Homepage Journal
    Furthermore, based on my understanding of the DMCA, provided that they respond to takedown orders, I think they're protected in doing this, as operators of an Information Service (or whatever the term is in the DMCA for networked services).

    As long as they respond to takedown requests and have an address on file with the Copyright Office for those requests, then I think they're pretty safe in doing what they're doing.

    Everybody here on Slashdot has been predicting the death of Google by way of YouTube lawsuits, but I think they've probably thought it through a little further than that. The law as it is today seems to be on their side. This doesn't mean that the copyright holders couldn't get enough pet senators together and "fix" that, but at least right now they're living up to their responsibilities.

    Of course they could still get sued -- this is America, anyone can sue anyone for anything -- but I'm not sure that they'll necessarily lose. And they have enough money to keep a lawsuit going for a while, it's not the bankruptcy-inducing thing that it would be for a small company.
  • by GogglesPisano ( 199483 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:10PM (#16517403)
    Yes, I would - if only for lack of imagination.

    The "small, specialist outfits" are precisely the ones who could benefit most from the huge, free exposure that a YouTube provides - they should be embracing this opportunity. Instead, however, they band together (as the JASRAC group in the TFA) and use the same jackboot tactics as their big corporate brethren.

    The draconion copyright statutes instituted by the megacorps certainly aren't there to help the little guys - they're there to maintain the status quo. The small outfits should be clamoring for new advertising and distribution channels like YouTube and P2P, but they're not. In their silence they are complicit with the RIAA and MPAA thugs.
  • by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:13PM (#16517437)
    There are two absurd extremes when it comes to perceived value and the internet.

    On one end you have people who thing everything should be free and anything is fair game.

    And at the other extreme you have companies spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars for something that's at its core immaterial.

    A bigger problem, to me, is how intrusive internet advertising has become, and that's to say nothing about the general crap quality of that advertising. These sites sell for so much money not because they actually offer anything of real substance but simply because they've hit on enough of a hook that they've managed to lure millions of visitors. The more visitors the more people exposed to advertising.

    The Internet is in a big way driven by ad supported models, much like television. These sites exist for advertising which means that whoever is running the site must be responsible for content.
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thansal ( 999464 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:16PM (#16517469)
    actualy, there are still a large number of "ethical" fansubers out there as there are still a number of good titles that don't get licensed in the US, and alot of them do take time to get licensed.

    Admitedly, 2 of the most popular shows (atm) are Licensed and airing in the US, however Dattebayo is still subing them.

    But what else do you expect from the GNAA?
  • by Robaato ( 958471 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:24PM (#16517551)
    Are you assuming that the Japanese voice actors are that much better than the American ones?

    Are you also assuming that the professional subtitle scripts are 100% accurate to the original Japanese meaning?

    Furthermore, are you assuming that those subbed anime files on YouTube were translated and subbed by professional translators?

    Remember, with animation, the "original" voice track is also a dub track. Just as there are...less-than-talented American voice actors, so there are less-than-skillful Japanese voice actors. And, fandubs vary wildly in quality (anyone recall the AnimeJunkies' mass naked child events [] fiasco?)

    Japanese production companies want their products to be seen in the best light possible -- right of publicity and all, y'know. An amateur translation/subtitling job probably won't be good enough for that.
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JohnFluxx ( 413620 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:31PM (#16517647)
    > They have never been ok with them EVER. Its just in the past they never prosecuted them because they had no plans to sell the shows here.

    So... they were ok with it since they had no plans to sell the shows here
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @12:44PM (#16517817) Homepage

    Of course this happened. YouTube is the next Napster. Same centralized hosting of uploaded content, same business model, same excuses, same legal problems. YouTube is in a worse legal position than Napster. Napster just hosted the index. YouTube hosts the actual content.

    YouTube could well be shut down by an injunction. That's what happened to Napster. "Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compositions of which the plaintiffs hold rights." -- U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

    As for it being the responsibility of the copyright holder to find the material, "Napster wrote the software; it's up to them to write software that will remove from users the ability to copy copyrighted material," -- Judge Patel

    YouTube, like Napster, is a contributory infringer. "The district court determined that plaintiffs had demonstrated they would likely succeed in establishing that Napster has a direct financial interest in the infringing activity. We agree. Financial benefit exists where the availability of infringing material "acts as a 'draw' for customers." -- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    I was amazed that Google bought YouTube. It was obvious they were buying into a huge litigation problem.

  • Says who? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20, 2006 @01:23PM (#16518339)
    Who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't a useful contribution to culture?

    I happen to like anime music videos, thank you very much. I still have some old Otaku Vengeance videos from many years ago that I watch from time to time. Anime music videos are an innovative re-mixing of cultural media into something interesting.

    If you don't like them, don't watch them. No need to shit all over the rest of us who DO like them.
  • Re:Noooooo!!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Zarxrax ( 652423 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @02:18PM (#16519131)
    This gets modded insightful? As an anime music video creator, I take issue with your sweeping statement that putting a song to anime footage brings nothing new to the table. AMVs are just as valid an art form as anything else. Over the years, I have seen AMVs that have made me laugh, made me cry, or simply made me marvel at their sheer ingenuity or technical achievements. Granted, the vast majority of AMVs on youtube are the equivalent of crayon drawings by a 4-year-old child, but that does not diminish the validity of the art form as a whole.
  • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @05:17PM (#16521777)
    Seriously, Television and video are the best look into another culture possible. The argument that posting Japanese television video is a violation of so-called intellectual property is completely negated by the value of having a window into Japan available to the rest of the world.

        The one thing that the so-called intellectual property 'owners' don't understand is that the only thing worse than having someone view your video without paying is to have no one interested in viewing your video at all. And every step that they take to close off access to public viewing of their video products sends the public into other directions for interesting videos. Directions that are not under the control of the video or music industries and directions that are unable to generate profits for the video and music industries.

        That is the whole point of the YouTube phenomenon. Young people are very interested in seeing videos that are outside of the control of the global media giants. And interested in not paying money for the experience. Any normal person could figure this out, but media executives and lawyers are not normal people. Their brains work differently.

        In other words, the media industry needs to learn that removing your products from the new general media outlets seriously decreases long-term demand for your products. And a serious decrease in demand means for them a serious decrease in the advertising revenue stream.

        One would think that they would have learned this lesson from the demise of network television over the past twenty years. But again, their brains just don't work like ordinary brains do.

        The global media companies will be gone in twenty years, Good riddance!
  • by Kazoo the Clown ( 644526 ) on Friday October 20, 2006 @06:39PM (#16522905)

    ...ube at all. No doubt they had a hand in reporting the programs and surely will not stop there. They would like to see all foreign programs barred for whatever reason simply because an eyeball glued to YouTube is NOT an eyeball glued to the major networks. If they could ban the home videos on YouTube they'd like to see that done too.

    They perhaps are beginning to realize that the drop in their revenue is not so much because of media piracy, but because there's just so darn much competition that's been enabled by the internet and they're getting beat up. And unfortunately, it's not like there's just one upstart that they can buy-out and assimilate, there's millions of individual, independent content sources out there that's diluting their monopoly. Boo-hoo about that, but watch out because they've got their claws out, and I expect there are some underhanded moves in store up ahead...

    The youth market is no doubt severely affected-- the draw of internet media or video games is dragging the eyeballs away from the dinosaur networks in droves and they're pretty darn scared about it-- or if they aren't, they ought to be. They certainly deserve to be...

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson