richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Says it all
"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that 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,"
Above says it all.
I hope Google is hammered over this. Google could have avoided this situation simply by taking a lesson from EBay. I am an EBay seller and had a drop in sales of wedding balloons. The problem was some dirt bag with dismal feed back rip off my listing photos. I contacted EBay and the offending listing was removed in hours.
I can sympathize with Viacom; they have every right to protect their property. In addition, I feel copyright issue, blatant narcissism, and plagiarism will be the downfall of Youtube. Not only users are ripping off Viacom but also each other, especially users of you tube who will take the same poor video insert their own splash screen and post it as their own work.
PS. Viacom should be careful MTV2* had ripped off a video form Anthrocon 2006 as part of their splash screen.
* I believe it was MTV2 (havoc?) or one of the other music networks |
|
kintar0
join:2006-09-26
Pomona, CA | AFAIK Google/Youtube does exactly what Ebay did for you. They are removing copyrighted material at the copyrigth holder's request. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to richardpor
if its getting uploaded faster then they can remove you cant fault them.
they will never see their billion, and a tech savvy judge will know that google is trying to keep the material off the site but unless they can somehow automate it and not have it remove someone's family movies because a title is too similar.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to richardpor
Greedy Corporate-Facist Propaganda Mode ON:
"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that 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,"
Actual reality Mode ON:
"YouTube has become a significant website by allowing USERS to post video clips for others on the internet to watch. Many Fans and others post clips of copyrighted material on the site, however this is against YouTube's policies and these clips will be removed in full compliance with copyright laws and the DMCA provisions."
YouTube's business model was to try and make money with webtraffic supported advertising, but it is FACT to say YouTube like many other Ad-supported services has FAILED to EVER turn a profit (kinda shoots that "Lucrative business claim in the foot) but has succeeded in generating a lot of hype and media buzz.
When Google, a company flush with cash from stock valuation purchased YouTube, people suddenly realized maybe they try the greedy, low-brow, easy money route of filing GROUNDLESS lawsuits vs Google in the hope that a less then tech-savvy Judge or Jury would be confused and grant them easy money.
So, a quick refresher:
1. YouTube is in full compliance with copyright provisions of the DMCA.
2. YouTube has never turned a profit
3. Viacomm is just on a money-grab mission with a groundless lawsuit, and should go pound sand.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
1 edit | Really? So you've looked at YouTube's statement of cash flows and internal revenue balances that aren't available to the public? I would imagine divulging such information, based on your insider knowledge, would violate a number of NDA's which you have undoubtedly signed.
Please, refrain from making any assumptions about YouTube generated ad revenue, as you know absolutely nothing about what they gross. Typical BBR bullshit. |
|
Gfox25
join:2002-07-25
Richmond Hill, NY
| You are making the assumption that that information was not already known.
»www.businessweek.com/magazine/co···s090806b |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
| Wait, Businessweek...Aren't these the same guys who had Kevin Rose of Digg.com on the front cover with the title; "How this dude made 60 million" or something of that nature? While at the same time Kevin has yet to see over a million? Oh, yeah that's the same Businessweek I get my news from too, right.
Until you see an earnings report detailing cash flows from YouTube operations, your comment remains purely speculative, and Businessweek dissections of the monetization of YouTube are likewise. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to Alphy
said by Alphy  :Please, refrain from making any assumptions about YouTube generated ad revenue, as you know absolutely nothing about what they gross. Typical BBR bullshit. Ah, prehaps you should follow your own advice.
I *have* followed YouTube and there have been numerous articles and business reports about their financials ESPECIALLY given the Google purchase when it was repeated over and over that YouTube has yet to come out of the red and into the black. Just 30 seconds of searching leads:
»news.com.com/2100-1026_3-6108971.html
»www.bivingsreport.com/2006/youtu···e-money/
»news.searchenginestoday.org/0006···ws.shtml
»www.businessweek.com/magazine/co···s090806b
YouTube may or may not become profitable eventually, they have various plans or ideas going. However at this time for someone to claim YouTube's "business model" is "Lucrative" is plain wrong. It can't be "Lucrative" if it makes no money!
As for comments being "purely speculative" that seems to refer to YOUR comments.... unless you believe you are indeed correct and everybody else is wrong...? |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
1 edit | You have to be kidding me by using those sites as sources;
cnn.com?
searchenginestoday.org?
a blog?
Holdon, let me go register some domain and throw Wordpress on it and cite it in my arguments.
Here, let me just finish the argument with this. I have seen confidential information regarding the SCF and future projections for revenue once YouTube is finally monetized. This arm chair, monday morning quarterbacking that people are doing with YouTube on BBR is retarded. Google has more money than you people do, they understand the business better than you do, and the decision to acquiesce YouTube into the Google fold was made by people far more intelligent than you have most likely have ever encountered. End of story. |
|
Pashune
Inhaling at 675 KB per sec.
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS | and y'know what? All of that is your opinion and your opinion only...  |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Alphy
said by Alphy :You have to be kidding me by using those sites as sources; LOL
Those were just examples. It's really really funny that you keep dismissing everyone else who posts as speculation or opinion, even when they offer articles etc to back it up, while insisting that your opinion and speculation is "the facts" and offer nothing to back it up. Monday morning quarterbacking? Look in the mirror, you'll see the biggest offender...
Once again, the statement was simple. YouTube has not made any money yet. Therefore claiming it's making "lucrative" profits off copyright infringement is false. Profit is profit, and YouTube hasn't made any..... Now, down the road, they may indeed become profitable.... but currently, Viacom's claim of YouTube's "lucrative" business model is laughable.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
