YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA 203
Jeff writes "In March, an earlier Slashdot post asked if iTunes sales of the Daily Show would make it harder to share clips online. Well, apparently with the $1.65 billion YouTube acquisition by Google, the answer is now yes. Today, YouTube removed all of its Comedy Central content. Google knew this was coming but you have to wonder if YouTube will be worth that $1.65 billion on Monday. The take down request comes a year after a Wired interview where Daily Show Executive Ben Karlin encouraged viewers to download: 'If people want to take the show in various forms, I'd say go.' Maybe the New York Times Company would have been a better acquisition for Google after all."
Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
While Google has a pretty good track record, there have been a few flops. This may prove to be one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Allow me to be the first to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
For Google to be seen losing in a market against a new competitor would have damaged that perception of being a iwnning competitor i.e. if a new upstart can beat Google in one area, how many other new players are there out in the market place that can beat Google in other areas (forget the microsofties, they have trouble beating them'eww').
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like Viacom made a request to YouTube to remove copywritten material. YouTube complied. End of story.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that. What I want to know is how Google "flopped" when YouTube complied with a reasonable request
The reason so many are claiming Google has made a mistake in purchasing YouTube is the presumption that the primary value of YouTube is the illegal distribution of copyrighted content. Many people, and many /.ers, assume user-created content is valueless and cannot be the center of a viable online business model, despite the success of sites that depend on user contributions, /. itself being a prime e
Goole's Plan! (Score:4, Funny)
2) Wait for all of the content to be removed
3) ???
4) profit!
So much for that. (Score:2, Insightful)
Except (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Youtube's indexer has never been just super-current. Oftentimes I'd click on a video only to find that it'd been removed due to terms of use violations.
Re:So much for that. (Score:5, Interesting)
I really liked YouTube too. It was nice to be able to watch Comedy Central shows, and older Adult Swim stuff that isn't on Fix. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
I still don't get why Google bought YouTube. It's just a giant liability. It's like buying the The Pirate Bay. Sure we all love it, but who actually wants to own that?
Re:So much for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I rarely see MTV videos or "BoobTube" type stuff there. But you do. It seems to me what you think YouTube is full of is the things that you search for and/or are subscribed too.
YouTube is at it's best with user generated content. Removing stuff that is just re-runs of what is already on TV may well improve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of it is crap anyway. According to me.
You have your own tastes which may involve copyrighted material. Well you really should buy it if you enjoy it. This stuff isn't free. Suppor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only dead if you think that "the little guy" never makes and uploads anything interesting.
While it's more profitable for a large corporation to police copyright violations (so people are forced to get their daily dose of the Stewart on their network, for example), for independent filmmakers, machinima artists, and small-time .com's, having material on YouTube is an asset; it makes people aware of the fact that they're out there, making things. It builds a fanbase, and that's important to them -- unle
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I'm kidding.
LisaNova is pretty good though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So much for that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, there aren't that many people that want to watch some homemade crap. You might think that, but the reality is that's been around forever on various sites, and those sites have been small. The audience just isn't that huge. While it might seem like even a brookers or lonelygirl video has a massive amount of hits, and that's true, that's only one video. For every one of those viral vidoes that gets 100,000 hits in a day, there are 100 clips of copyrighted material that get 5,000 hits.
Just look at the comparison between YouTube and Google Video. The only real difference is that YouTube has copyrighted material, and for that reason YouTube is probably several orders of magnitude more successful.
Overtime you will see YouTube phase out into just another AtomFilms...or iFilm...or Google Video. The only thing that ever made YouTube different was the massive amount of copyrighted material.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, "due to DMCA"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He means "due to the basic law of copyright that the US has had for over 200 years and is embedded into the Constitution, and allowed 26-year copyright terms and fair use, until the media companies contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to political parties and started hiring former congressmen and their aides as lobbyists."
For 200 years, American newspapers were copying f
Re: (Score:2)
But, it sounds good, don't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That is clearly the basis for both patent and copyright. As for international copyright, the Berne Convention [cornell.edu] wasn't until 1886, a hundred years after the Constitution, hardly "at the time."
Why the DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA isn't just about copy protection, it also includes sections that detail the way a copyright holder is to notify a service that hosts user-uploaded content and the way such a service must respond to those notifications. Check out 17 USC 512 [cornell.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
*off topic*
Firefox 2's spell checker flags DMCA! LOL!
Back on topic:
You are right (IMHO) about not needing the DMCA to deal with this- a simple letter stating that there seemed to be an issue with copyrighted content has always worked with youtube.com, but it seems invoking the DMCA to "leverage the versati
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The DMCA isn't all about "no circumventing futile copy protection attempts" and "no telling other people how to circumvent futile copy protection attempts" - this is actually about the good part of the DMCA.
You're right that this would have been a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem with it, is that it provides little to no punishment for faulty DMCA notices. The onus is on you to argue with your ISP that they really shouldn't have taken-down your website (Google is one of the few companies that don't go overboard at the first DMCA notice and takedown), and the company gets to keep on doing it.
D'oh (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:D'oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that YouTube is owned by a company with serious money, they're probably trying to negotiate a deal where Google pays X amount per view or something. They can't do that while they're allowing their content to be downloaded for free. My guess is it's all political maneuvering.
Re:D'oh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if Comedy Central isn't in negotiation with Google to legally begin adding content to YouTube in some manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Comedy Central does post their own clips, but they seem hard to navigate through.
Uh ... yeah. This is exactly what they need to do. Why would they give such huge traffic away to YouTube when they could still provide free teaser content to fans and build their own site?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurt I would say. Being that if you're not paying your cable subscription fees, you have to buy this content via your cell phone or iTunes. I don't really think Comedy Central is relying on viral marketing for their shows. Everyone I know that watches it on YouTube watches it because they like the stuff and don't want to pay for cable.
So yes, those people ARE, threatening Comedy Central's revenue model. (Yo
Uhh, no they haven't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like they have some work left to do, if they're actually serious about doing it.
Or.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Comedy Central is owned by MTV Networks (who also own Spike, VH1, Nickelodeon and CMT [along with their associated digital and spin-off channels]) who is, in turn, owned by Viacom, who are, in turn "owned" (via the ownership of voting stock) by Sumner Redstone/National Amusements.
And while Google's stock price may be at $475.20/share, their market cap is only 1.44 billion compared to Viacom's 2.44 billion.
This is the actual email (Score:5, Informative)
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Comedy Central claiming that this material is infringing:
Steve Wozniak on Colbert Report 09/28/2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIfYgbajpk [youtube.com]
Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:
DMCA Complaints
YouTube, Inc.
1000 Cherry Ave.
Second Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
Email: copyright@youtube.com
Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.
Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
Value for value (Score:2)
$15/month to watch a single TV show? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean can you imagine the bill of using iTunes vs. Tivo? Buying the Simpsons... Family Guy... Daily Show... The News... Daily Planet... Let's see... that adds up $75/month. For 5 shows. No wonder people pirate this crap!
Re: (Score:2)
$55/mo for a cable DVR that will record all of those shows...
Not if you only watch a few shows (Score:2)
From that standpoint it's a hell of a deal that you don't have to pay a recurring fee for something you might only use a once or twice a week!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe for you, but no cable here and none of the available satellite stations (China and Philippines) offer Comedy Central. (And no iTunes, for that matter, they won't sell to me.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only because iTunes is RIDICULOUSLY overpriced. If you have a full-sized satellite dish (NOT DishNet/DirecTV), it actually only costs you maybe $0.50/month per cable channel.
At that, I should be paying (a little over) $3.00/mo for EVERY I ever care to watch. And I would really only want to keep 2 channels if they charged something like $4 per-channel. As much as I like the Daily Show and Colbert Report, it isn't worth the money
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to Tivo, there are some advantages -- it's easy to archive to a (data) DVD, and easier to put on an iPod. Overall, it makes the most sense if you don't watch enough TV to j
Re:$15/month to watch a single TV show? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything, that is, except for the two channels I would pay for: Comedy Central, and Cartoon Network. I don't watch a lot of TV. I don't have time to watch a lot of TV. But I'd love to catch the Daily Show for 20 minutes of my life every day. And you're telling me I should shell out $60 to Comcast for 30 minutes per day + lots of crap I don't have time for, instead of $10 to Apple but be limited to what I actually want? (It's only on 4 times a week, so it really is only $10 a month.) I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Lexus for 30+K
laptop for 2+K
Gucci purse for 800C+
No wonder people steal this crap.
Hint: People steal crap because they are thieves.
Obligatory South Park joke (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Biggie Smalls. Biggie Smalls. Biggie Smalls.
You Tube without copyright content is WORTHLESS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google got had.
It is worthless to you... (Score:2)
Re:You Tube without copyright content is WORTHLESS (Score:4, Insightful)
Google got had.
I think not. Google's plans for YouTube and are bigger than most people imagine. They now control THE internet video domain name. Nobody went to Google Video, so they changed their strategy. They will undoubtedly negotiate mutually beneficial deals with various copyright owners to host TV content. I for one will happily watch my Colbert Report on YouTube, on demand, legally, in higher def with guaranteed quality, rather than have to hunt down a torrent or wait for somebody to upload some fragment of the show with inconsistent quality and unpredictable keywords. Heck, they can still allow people to upload snippets of the shows as long as they've negotiated ahead of time. So as long as I have Internet access, I don't need cable anymore, and I won't need to download shows illegally.
I think the Google acquisition of YouTube is actually a big win. Think about it -- Google knows you intimately based on your searches, even more so if you have a Google account and gmail. Tie that to your video viewing habits, and Google effortlessly blows away the whole Neilsen rating system. They can provide cheaper bandwidth and hosting than the networks themselves, and they can track everything you watch and every ad you see. And you won't see ads for things you wouldn't want to buy anyway. This represents a potentially huge efficiency/productivity gain for advertisers, and they will pay well for it.
Google has big plans to be a major player in the media industry, whose future is increasingly Internet-based. Don't underestimate them.
Or do you really think they bought YouTube cuz it was "cool" and they had the spare cash? Google isn't stupid. You can believe Page and Brin and Eric Schmidt do some deep thinking about companies they choose to acquire, and what they plan to do with them.
In other news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd be really curious to see what Colbert's take on this action is.
That's ok... (Score:2, Informative)
Up yours DMCA and comedy central!
So it begins.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who Needs Who? Broadcasters Need Net Users (Score:2, Interesting)
No I don't, it's Comedy Central that needs YouTube not the other way around. As there's far more cable television access than broadband in the US, I imagine everyone who wants Comedy Central already has it and that's not what actally drives traffic to YouTube. What drives traffic to YouTube is interesting content you can't get anywhere else. The people who are going to YouTube are a demographic that traditional broadcasters a
Breaking news: (Score:5, Funny)
Other leading stories:
Someone better get a kick out of this. I spent enough time writing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't devalue YouTube in the slightest. (Score:4, Insightful)
For me and a lot of other people the value of YouTube is really in all the user created videos. What people have not thought about is that whlile a lot of the content is drek, with some editing some of it from various sources could actually produce some compelling video - and YouTube has the rights to everything put on the site.
As long as people keep coming to YouTube the value will hold, and it really will not change because where else are they going to go to find user-created internet video? Not Google Video!
Lawyers vs. technology, YouTube vs. another model (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? (Score:4, Informative)
I think a more likely case is that Comedy Central files a bunch of DMCA requests, and a bunch got taken down. But a "bunch" is hardly "all." And more will be uploaded. The DMCA is a deeply flawed tool (the mandatory takedown window even if you challenge the takedown is nothing less than an infringement of the first amendment), but in this case it's a copyright infringers friend. YouTube is not legally required to police for Comedy Centrals content, only to take content down when informed. Google (YouTube's new owner) has a very slow DMCA processing system (as someone whose used it, I can confirm this). So just don't worry about it. The total amont of infringing content may go down, and older stuff might be harder to find, but there will be lots of Comedy Central on YouTube for a long time.
Various comments I have. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Whatever happened to common sense? Does viewing these clips online really hurt the show? Does it stop people from watching the show when it's on t.v.? Does it really stop people from buying episodes of the show when they wish to have a true copy of it? No. The people who are going to buy it is going to be roughly the same as before. This is simply alienating people from enjoying something that makes them happy.
2. I bet a lot of polisci p
Daily Show taken down -- October Surprise? (Score:2)
the value of news clips (Score:2)
For instance, when Bill Clinton went batshit recently, or John Stewart had his "hurting America" speech, everyone wanted to know precisely what the honest and forward criticism was, partially because it was so atypical, but also because it was topically pertinent. It was on the news, and the'd missed it.
The Dai
Slashdot: DMCA -vs- Youtube (Score:2)
Slashdot: How the DMCA Protects YouTube [slashdot.org]
Damn it (Score:2)
I should have downloaded that "Trapped in the Closet" South Park episode while I still had the chance. Now it's officially DoublePlusUnHistory.
Safe Harbor (Score:2)
Too Slow (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/browse?s=mp [youtube.com]
direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3nIi0gH20 [youtube.com]
Annoying! (Score:2)
draw your own version in cartoon using their audio (Score:2)
using flash or some other 'cartoon creator' kit if there is any.
Just as funny, maybe more so, but not 100% (C) either. If thats still not enough
then fake the voices your self, or use ATTs text to speech converter, so only
the content words are the same, but the audio and video is 100% yours.
YouTube sold me on both the Daily Show and Colbert (Score:3, Interesting)
Free advertizing (Score:2)
So what's left (Score:2)
Here's an "idear" put a flag on the video that the user can select. That says "Was the content of this video created by you or your group?" That may help users who want to showcase their material. Then people browsing content can select whether they want user created or other. Sure you'll never get 100% participation, but it may help people who want to specifically look for cats peeing in toilets, co
No borders (Score:2)
YouTube will be worth.. (Score:2)
Attorneys are the most destructive force in the world today, far out stripping any countries 'armed force' out there, and hell bent on destroying society.
And yet... (Score:2)
But somehow, *they're* not violating copyright laws, because it was author-uploaded content?
Understanding the Economics of the "GooTube" deal (Score:2)
Google's stock went up by more than $1.65b in market cap the very day they bought YouTube, which was done as a pure stock deal. This means that while Youtuve's founders, investors and staff still made a pile of money, it was effectively free for Google. Since that time, their market cap has gone up another $15bn or so, and a good proportion of that is due to the buzz from the YouTube deal.
Google didn't buy YouTube to kill it, they bought it because it was a bunch of free eyeballs. Yes, they will have to fun
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the part I don't get. Comedy Central [comedycentral.com] itself links to Daily Show [comedycentral.com] and Colbert Report [comedycentral.com] clips on Youtube. So who, then, issued the DMCA requests, and why didn't they let the webmaster know?
This makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes no sense."
Well, who would have the most benefit from having those clips removed from YouTube?
Comedy Central, or... Fox?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. Those clips aren't hosted on YouTube. Comedy Central hosts those clips on its own site.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of just your opinion. I feel they get watched on the net because they are popular to begin with.
"Actors/actresses/musicians/artists/athletes/ente r tainers/executives/etc. have no right to be paid millions upon millions for their lack of work in society."
You say that as if it were a fact, instead of the opinion of someone who probably doesn't produce anythi
Re: (Score:2)
doh!