PDA

View Full Version : Hells Yeah Viacom



mob roulette
03-13-2007, 08:08 AM
NOW it's on and cracking. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/) YEAH.

define terms. take sides. etc. bonus points for plausible settlement scenarios. ok go.

Mr.Nipples
03-13-2007, 08:12 AM
sumner redstones gotta eat!

fober
03-13-2007, 08:14 AM
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.”

It's true.

But obviously, I love being able to watch anything at all on YouTube.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 08:20 AM
also, hate to bring up the obvious here, but isn't google now worth something like three times as much as viacom is? that's motive right there. that's turning the pockets inside out. oh inverted world indeed.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 08:24 AM
do people actually watch things on YouTube instead of buying the DVD or watching the show on TV or whatever? I don't think so. So (in my mind) Viacom is going to have a hard time claiming damages. It's not like they've built a competing website, have they?

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internets. I would think Viacom's motivation for this is --
(1) they see YouTube making a gazillion dollars and think they can construct a plausible argument that some of that gazillion should be theirs
(2) although probably not damaged by the copyright infringements, they need to set precedent for those cases where infringement actually does damage them.

here's the rub though: YouTube has been wildly successful because they are filling a market need. The companies actually holding the copyrights have had their heads up their collective asses and have not brought the people what they want, that is, instantaneous access to video and an easy way to share it, without having to pay for it every time. like I said I don't think YouTube causes people to buy fewer videos; if anything it serves as a sort of advertising and may in fact increase demand (admittedly that is conjecture on my part, I haven't seen any facts one way or the other).

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 08:41 AM
I watch so much digital content that I only use my TV for gaming and News. I dont have cable there is no need for me to watch it anymore. Through digital media I can pick and choose what portion of shows I want to watch and if I dont want to see the whole show I can skip around. I love it.


A deal where Viacom aquires a stake in youtube. Viacom content only distrubuted through their website. Consumer programs burried with Ads, I believe this is Googles motive with youtube. Death of youtube, only use now is for video advertisement. Next up user streamed content from home servers. Torrent sites solution to distribution for digital media. the end.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 08:43 AM
do people actually watch things on YouTube instead of buying the DVD or watching the show on TV or whatever? I don't think so. So (in my mind) Viacom is going to have a hard time claiming damages. It's not like they've built a competing website, have they?

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internets. I would think Viacom's motivation for this is --
(1) they see YouTube making a gazillion dollars and think they can construct a plausible argument that some of that gazillion should be theirs
(2) although probably not damaged by the copyright infringements, they need to set precedent for those cases where infringement actually does damage them.

here's the rub though: YouTube has been wildly successful because they are filling a market need. The companies actually holding the copyrights have had their heads up their collective asses and have not brought the people what they want, that is, instantaneous access to video and an easy way to share it, without having to pay for it every time. like I said I don't think YouTube causes people to buy fewer videos; if anything it serves as a sort of advertising and may in fact increase demand (admittedly that is conjecture on my part, I haven't seen any facts one way or the other).

i agree with your analysis. but has anyone ever bought anything simply BECAUSE they were exposed to it on YouTube? it would seem to me the only way Viacom could hope to gain anything by citing copyright infrigement would be to prove that they've lost revenue by people either A) not buying dvd's or whatever of their original programming because they watched it on YouTube instead or B) they somehow lost advertising revenue by people not watching the original broadcasts in the first place and electing instead to catch it on YouTube at a later date. the fact that the majority of Viacom's programming is "free" in the first place sort of makes this a specious argument for me. someone's just looking to get paid here.

fober
03-13-2007, 08:44 AM
do people actually watch things on YouTube instead of buying the DVD or watching the show on TV or whatever? I don't think so. So (in my mind) Viacom is going to have a hard time claiming damages. It's not like they've built a competing website, have they?

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internets. I would think Viacom's motivation for this is --
(1) they see YouTube making a gazillion dollars and think they can construct a plausible argument that some of that gazillion should be theirs
(2) although probably not damaged by the copyright infringements, they need to set precedent for those cases where infringement actually does damage them.

here's the rub though: YouTube has been wildly successful because they are filling a market need. The companies actually holding the copyrights have had their heads up their collective asses and have not brought the people what they want, that is, instantaneous access to video and an easy way to share it, without having to pay for it every time. like I said I don't think YouTube causes people to buy fewer videos; if anything it serves as a sort of advertising and may in fact increase demand (admittedly that is conjecture on my part, I haven't seen any facts one way or the other).

I think what they're saying is that YouTube is using Viacom products to make money.

Regardless of whether or not Viacom planned on distributing their products in a similar fashion, someone else is using it without their permission.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 08:46 AM
I think what they're saying is that YouTube is using Viacom products to make money.

Regardless of whether or not Viacom planned on distributing their products in a similar fashion, someone else is using it without their permission.

right. and if that were all there were to it it they'd seek an injunction (against YouTube using their stuff). instead they're suing for damages. How were they damaged financially?

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Sales of DVD's from popular TV shows.

fober
03-13-2007, 08:50 AM
right. and if that were all there were to it it they'd seek an injunction (against YouTube using their stuff). instead they're suing for damages. How were they damaged financially?

Instead of watching the Viacom shows on television, with the appropriate advertisements, people jumped on the net and viewed ad-less clips on YouTube.

They're trying to make the case that they've lost revenue because viewers weren't subjected to their own advertisements.

skavenbrew
03-13-2007, 08:51 AM
it makes me laugh when i see youtube stamp copyright on anything...

"copyright of YouTube" just seems kinda ironic to me......

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 08:51 AM
right. and if that were all there were to it it they'd seek an injunction (against YouTube using their stuff). instead they're suing for damages. How were they damaged financially?

ding ding ding ding ding. give the man a cigar. what happened is this: they went to the table together to broker a licensing deal, viacom didn't like the terms and so now they're going after the money they felt they "earned" in the first place. it's total bullshit and legally unsound to boot.

fober
03-13-2007, 08:54 AM
We're not arguing the motive here.

We know why they want the money, we're trying to figure out how they can make the case that they're owed $1B.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 08:55 AM
ding ding ding ding ding. give the man a cigar. what happened is this: they went to the table together to broker a licensing deal, viacom didn't like the terms and so now they're going after the money they felt they "earned" in the first place. it's total bullshit and legally unsound to boot.

right. that's what I think too. I think they're gonna have a hard time proving that people watch YouTube instead of watching the shows on TV or buying DVDs.

caco0283
03-13-2007, 08:57 AM
i dont even think there is a way to export material from youtube....i could see damages if you could put it as a quicktime file or any other file so you can make copies...but i dont think you can

fober
03-13-2007, 08:57 AM
I don't think this has anything to do with DVDs.

They'll use viewers lost from broadcasts.

THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN mp3s FOLKS

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:03 AM
good fober. then we're all on the same page. so the question remains, how do they prove they lost revenue? YouTube doesn't cut into the DVD sales of "three and a half men" or "CSI" or whatever. so the only angle they have to work is the advertising one. what we need to find out is how those contracts are written. when viacom sells ad space, are an expected number of viewers actually written into the contract? or is this just implied by virtue of them being viacom? i'm not sure how this works exactly. but if they can't prove this clearly and concisely and with NUMBERS, then there is no case.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 09:04 AM
ding ding ding ding ding. give the man a cigar. what happened is this: they went to the table together to broker a licensing deal, viacom didn't like the terms and so now they're going after the money they felt they "earned" in the first place. it's total bullshit and legally unsound to boot.

Yup.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:04 AM
ding ding ding ding ding. give the man a cigar. what happened is this: they went to the table together to broker a licensing deal, viacom didn't like the terms and so now they're going after the money they felt they "earned" in the first place. it's total bullshit and legally unsound to boot.


The lawsuit is just to gain leverage to get google/youtube to comply. That's it. Youtube will settle and agree to remove the videos. That was likely always Viacom's plan. And Viacom is absolutely suffering financially from their videos being posted on youtube. Fober already stated why. I have no idea how that isn't obvious.

Why would you bother staying up or rushing to your TV on schedule and have to sit through the commercials that pay for the show when you can just watch it at your leisure? Anyone who says "oh but the quality is crappy" is just being pretentious. If you don't believe it hurts DVD sales then you're also being ignorant. Why pay for something that you can find with just a few clicks from anywhere in the world for free? if these people couldn't find this media for free on the web then they may have purchased the DVD. Just because YOU love spending money on DVDs doesn't mean everyone does.

This isn't that hard to understand. If you claim not to then you're being pretentious.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:06 AM
when viacom sells ad space, are an expected number of viewers actually written into the contract? or is this just implied by virtue of them being Viacom? i'm not sure how this works exactly.

That's a good question.

I think there's a very thin argument here that if Viacom's shows (which are on several networks, not just CBS) are losing broadcast viewers to YouTube, their ad space becomes worthless (or worth less).

I don't know how you prove any of this stuff.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:07 AM
The lawsuit is just to gain leverage to get google/youtube to comply. That's it. Youtube will settle and agree to remove the videos. That was likely always Viacom's plan. And Viacom is absolutely are suffering financially from their videos being posted on youtube. Fober already stated why. I have no idea how that isn't obvious.

Why would you bother staying up or rushing to your TV on schedule and have to sit through the commercials that pay for the show when you can just watch it at your leisure? Anyone who says "oh but the quality is crappy" is just being pretentious. If you don't believe it hurts DVD sales then you're also being ignorant. Why pay for something that you can find with just a few clicks from anywhere in the world for free? if these people couldn't find this media for free on the web then they may have purchased the DVD. Just because YOU love spending money on DVDs doesn't mean everyone does.

This isn't that hard to understand. If you claim not to then you're being pretentious.

I say, jack old fellow, bloody good show there. However, I think you're spouting bollocks.

I don't know anyone who watches YouTube instead of TV or DVDs. if they do they're poor cheap bastards who aren't worth a dime to the advertisers anyway.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 09:07 AM
`They are trying to twist YouTube's arm as much as possible to extract better economic terms,'' said Youssef Squali, a Jefferies & Co. analyst in New York who rates Google ``buy'' and said he doesn't own the shares. ``YouTube seems to be infringing on their copyrighted content and they don't like the economic split.''

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 09:09 AM
`This is an initial attempt to move negotiations along,'' Robert Peck, an analyst at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York, said today in a note. ``Both sides would be better served with an agreement.''

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:09 AM
The lawsuit is just to gain leverage to get google/youtube to comply. That's it. Youtube will settle and agree to remove the videos. That was likely always Viacom's plan. And Viacom is absolutely suffering financially from their videos being posted on youtube. Fober already stated why. I have no idea how that isn't obvious.

Why would you bother staying up or rushing to your TV on schedule and have to sit through the commercials that pay for the show when you can just watch it at your leisure? Anyone who says "oh but the quality is crappy" is just being pretentious. If you don't believe it hurts DVD sales then you're also being ignorant. Why pay for something that you can find with just a few clicks from anywhere in the world for free? if these people couldn't find this media for free on the web then they may have purchased the DVD. Just because YOU love spending money on DVDs doesn't mean everyone does.

This isn't that hard to understand. If you claim not to then you're being pretentious.

no jack. this is wrong because you can't view dvd length shows OR have DVD quality from YouTube. if you could post entire episodes of say "the sopranos" which is on a pay channel to begin with, then you have a case. otherwise i just don't see it. i'm calling for the case to be thrown out on principle alone. viacom isn't seeking what it claims to. it's a ploy, as you said.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:09 AM
if they do they're poor cheap bastards who aren't worth a dime to the advertisers anyway.

Ok that's not true at all.

Those poor cheap bastards are right up their alley (Burger King, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coke, other Viacom shows).

fober
03-13-2007, 09:11 AM
no jack. this is wrong because you can't view dvd length shows OR have DVD quality from YouTube.

Actually you can.

In fact, there are entire movies (split into like 20 clips) that can be viewed on YouTube (until someone reports it).

The quality is obviously lacking, but seriously here, does it matter what format you watch South Park in?

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:11 AM
Ok that's not true at all.

Those poor cheap bastards are right up their alley (Burger King, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coke, other Viacom shows).

I know it's not true. I was being pretentious. It was part of the joke. like the british accent.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:12 AM
`They are trying to twist YouTube's arm as much as possible to extract better economic terms,'' said Youssef Squali, a Jefferies & Co. analyst in New York who rates Google ``buy'' and said he doesn't own the shares. ``YouTube seems to be infringing on their copyrighted content and they don't like the economic split.''


`This is an initial attempt to move negotiations along,'' Robert Peck, an analyst at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York, said today in a note. ``Both sides would be better served with an agreement.''

also correct and correct. thanks j. any judge in his or her right mind will obviously see what a waste of taxpayer money this is. i hope anyway.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 09:12 AM
no jack. this is wrong because you can't view dvd length shows OR have DVD quality from YouTube. if you could post entire episodes of say "the sopranos" which is on a pay channel to begin with, then you have a case. otherwise i just don't see it. i'm calling for the case to be thrown out on principle alone. viacom isn't seeking what it claims to. it's a ploy, as you said.

I have watched entire movies on google video and complete Tv shows on youtube.

semisonic
03-13-2007, 09:13 AM
Although television broadcasts are different from MP3's, the fundamental problem is the same. As alluded to above by Tom, the conventional entertainment companies (records companies, TV networks) failed to keep up with technology and culture and were overtaken by faster, smarter outfits (peer-to-peer file sharing, YouTube), who realized people wanted the option of selecting specific smaller pieces of content rather than having to buy a whole cd or watch a whole TV show, with commercials and all. Now the conventional providers are trying to catch up by suing and hoping to either force some sort of deal or get a cash settlement. I don't feel sorry for them. They were arrogant and lazy. On the other hand, I also believe copyright laws should exist and be enforced. YouTube is profiting from blatant copyright infringement. If they reach a settlement that allows YouTube to continue but kicks some profits back to the copyright holders, that would be okay. By the way, I am a lawyer, but I don't practice copyright law or have any particular insight into this case.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:13 AM
I say, jack old fellow, bloody good show there. However, I think you're spouting bollocks.

I don't know anyone who watches YouTube instead of TV or DVDs. if they do they're poor cheap bastards who aren't worth a dime to the advertisers anyway.

I seriously question your logic here. A person who watches South Park on youtube instead of on comedy central at 10:30 on Wednesday isn't necessarily too cheap to buy anything that was advertized.

In fact, it might be that EXACT demographic that the advertizers were shooting for. Maybe those people don't spend their money on DVD's but they do spend it on video games. Maybe those are the ones the Army's trying to recruit. This is what advertizing people make their money doing. This is why company's pay big money to buy air time during popular shows.

when the company's decide that it's not worth wasting their money on ad space they'll stop paying, or drastically reduce the amount they're willing to pay. Eventually Viacom won't be able to pay for the shows that people are stealing.

I'm not crying for the plight of the rich execs at viacom, just that it's completely obvious what's going on.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:14 AM
I like semisonic's take. Hit it right on the head IMO.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:16 AM
no jack. this is wrong because you can't view dvd length shows OR have DVD quality from YouTube. if you could post entire episodes of say "the sopranos" which is on a pay channel to begin with, then you have a case. otherwise i just don't see it. i'm calling for the case to be thrown out on principle alone. viacom isn't seeking what it claims to. it's a ploy, as you said.

no, bug, this is wrong because it doesn't matter if you can watch a full DVD length show (btw, shows are 30 minutes and usually split up into about 3 clips). And don't mention the quality. Only rich priveledged kids or snobs will pay $40 for a season of South Park when they can watch all the episodes on youtube.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:16 AM
That's all fine and dandy but how do they prove they're owed $1B?

MOCK TRIAL WITH J. REINHOLD
MOCK TRIAL WITH J. REINHOLD

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:17 AM
Actually you can.

In fact, there are entire movies (split into like 20 clips) that can be viewed on YouTube (until someone reports it).

The quality is obviously lacking, but seriously here, does it matter what format you watch South Park in?


I have watched entire movies on google video and complete Tv shows on youtube.

oh. my mistake. well that might be a different story then. how good a job does YouTube do in policing themselves in this arena? if it's so rampant and widespread on any given day, then i can see seeking a piece of the action. perhaps this actually is closer to the mp3 argument than we think.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:19 AM
I like semisonic's take. Hit it right on the head IMO.

semisonic did sum it up nicely, but the plain fact of the matter is that viacom is having their property distributed for free and it's costing them profit.
You cannot say they have no basis to sue. You can claim they don't deserve to win, but you cannot deny their right to seek damage.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:20 AM
Right. I'm just expressing doubt that they suffered much in the way of actual damages.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:20 AM
also one billion is a made up number. they could have just as easily said 250 million. it doesn't mean anything.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:21 AM
how good a job does YouTube do in policing themselves in this arena? if it's so rampant and widespread on any given day, then i can see seeking a piece of the action. perhaps this actually is closer to the mp3 argument than we think.

No idea.

Also, I don't think this is the mp3 argument here because it's not an equivalent loss of revenue.

If someone downloads an album and doesn't buy the actual album at some point, that's ~$15 (or whatever CDs sell for) that isn't captured.

If someone "downloads" a TV show on one of the over-the-air networks, no actual money is lost, since you don't pay money to watch those shows (because someone else already paid for the show to be aired with advertisement funds).


also one billion is a made up number. they could have just as easily said 250 million. it doesn't mean anything.

Actually I think it's a calculated sum based on their claim that their clips have generated 1.5 Billion views on YouTube.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 09:22 AM
i dont even think there is a way to export material from youtube....i could see damages if you could put it as a quicktime file or any other file so you can make copies...but i dont think you can

I actually have a firefox extension that downloads from youtube. I of course don't use it, because youtube videos are often akin to, well, garbage. But there is at least one program out there. Dozens, probably. The fact is, if you put it on the internet, people are going to find ways to steal it, regardless of what "it" is.

By broadcasting things that are recordable (not that viacom can really avoid that) they are running the risk of people stealing their content. It's the same thing that happens when someone copies a CD or even makes an unauthorized xerox of print materials. If viacom wants security of their media, thay are in the wrong business.

caco0283
03-13-2007, 09:23 AM
The quality is obviously lacking, but seriously here, does it matter what format you watch South Park in?


thats a good point....but would you watch Lost (if it wasn't on ABC.com for free) on youtube?? Or would you watch american idol on youtube?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:23 AM
Right. I'm just expressing doubt that they suffered much in the way of actual damages.

if you accept that viacom does lose out because of some degree of lost ratings (which translates directly into lower advertizing value) then that's OK.

I don't think it's near $1B either, but I still think the figure was just a way to get youtube to comply and set a precedent for future suits if they don't comply.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:25 AM
IF it can be demonstrated that Viacom lost viewership, then I agree with you Jack. but what you take to be 'obvious' actually comes as a surprise to me, cuz as I said, I don't know anyone who watches YouTube instead of TV.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:27 AM
thats a good point....but would you watch Lost (if it wasn't on ABC.com for free) on youtube?? Or would you watch american idol on youtube?

Instead of waiting for a re-run on network TV? Probably.

semisonic
03-13-2007, 09:29 AM
The initial dollar figures in a complaint (lawsuit) are usually irrelevant legally, but it gives the defendant an idea of how serious you are. Also, there are two ways for business to be regulated: by the government or by private litigation. The government hasn't taken much interest in regulating these big copyright issues, so it is being done through private litigation. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The issue will get worked out without Congress and a lot of taxpayer dollars having to be involved. What I'm interested to see is how the eventual settlement will affect consumers. Will people have to start paying to see broadcast clips on YouTube? That's probably Viacom's goal.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 09:29 AM
I believe that Viacom wants to force google and youtube into some type of online Ad deal where Viacom gets paid on all Viacom copyrighted material viewed on youtube or Google. Youtube and Google told Viacom to get bent because thats Googles main source of income and now Viacom is going to get what they want one way or another. Another interesting article of note is Googles new office location http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197006843

this is all speculation so yeah useless to the topic at hand

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:29 AM
IF it can be demonstrated that Viacom lost viewership, then I agree with you Jack. but what you take to be 'obvious' actually comes as a surprise to me, cuz as I said, I don't know anyone who watches YouTube instead of TV.

i know tons of people that don't bother running home to watch shows like south park or Rome. why bother? There's better stuff I could be doing with those prime time slots rather than sitting in front of my TV like a good little soldier. If I can watch it on my own time I will.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:30 AM
By broadcasting things that are recordable (not that viacom can really avoid that) they are running the risk of people stealing their content. It's the same thing that happens when someone copies a CD or even makes an unauthorized xerox of print materials. If viacom wants security of their media, thay are in the wrong business.

this is right too. this is actually the crux of the entire media convergence argument. license the shit FAIRLY and keep it above ground or don't and watch your product get distributed anyway. i'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying that's reality. also agree with semisonic re: viacom, riaa, etc. not just because they were arrogant and lazy but also because the majority of media content delivery sytems ripped people off for YEARS. artists AND consumers. so what if they stand to make a little less now? that's just the way that cookie crumbles. that's technology. that's progress. and so if you're not going to be part of the solution, don't stand in the way of the people who are trying to come up with one. YouTube is not a finished idea, by any means, but it's pretty cool for what it is. viacom's just pissed that they didn't think of it first. get over it.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 09:31 AM
Will people have to start paying to see broadcast clips on YouTube? That's probably Viacom's goal.


That would suck. That would kill YouTube.

I'm hoping instead there's some sort of ad revenue sharing solution.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:36 AM
It wouldn't kill YouTube. It would kill viewership of Viacom clips on YouTube.

There's still plenty of mindless garbage to go around.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:38 AM
this is right too. this is actually the crux of the entire media convergence argument. license the shit FAIRLY and keep it above ground or don't and watch your product get distributed anyway. i'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying that's reality. also agree with semisonic re: viacom, riaa, etc. not just because they were arrogant and lazy but also because the majority of media content delivery sytems ripped people off for YEARS. artists AND consumers. so what if they stand to make a little less now? that's just the way that cookie crumbles. that's technology. that's progress. and so if you're not going to be part of the solution, don't stand in the way of the people who are trying to come up with one. YouTube is not a finished idea, by any means, but it's pretty cool for what it is. viacom's just pissed that they didn't think of it first. get over it.

just because you CAN copy and distribute copyrighted material doesn't mean it's legal. Come on now. A traffic light can't physically stop me from driving through it when it's red so does that mean it's legal to do it?(bad analogy but hopefully you get the point). This is a society, there are rules that should be obvious even if we choose to break them.

I can't stand the "oh big media was just too lazy to get with the times". Companies like Sony have done exactly what you're accusing viacom of not doing and people had a fit. Whether viacom voluntarily or inadvertently didn't protect their media is irrelevent. It's still their property. It's their right to not give permission to display it for profit (which is indirectly what youtube does).

thefunkylama
03-13-2007, 09:42 AM
Well, I know Viacom isn't incapable of putting their own shows up on the web for free... Comedy Central breaks down The Daily Show and Colbert Report, etc., on their website the day after the shows air. The quality is better than YouTube, and you only get a short ad before each clip, though the sorting system kind of sucks. That really isn't proof of anything, other than they may not start charging for videos... at least not right away.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:46 AM
Well, I know Viacom isn't incapable of putting their own shows up on the web for free... Comedy Central breaks down The Daily Show and Colbert Report, etc., on their website the day after the shows air. The quality is better than YouTube, and you only get a short ad before each clip, though the sorting system kind of sucks. That really isn't proof of anything, other than they may not start charging for videos... at least not right away.

good point. It seems Viacom isn't fundamentally opposed to offering their media for free as long as you have to go to them to get it, it is temporary, and they get a shot at advertizing their other shows for you. Seems reasonable to me.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 09:50 AM
just because you CAN copy and distribute copyrighted material doesn't mean it's legal.

It's an industry risk. Like I mentioned, by beaming their product into people's homes and not having any way to keep track of it, they are risking illegal reproduction.

People stealing/sharing media is inevitable. It's not a tangible thing, so people justify it to themselves, i.e. "I wouldn't otherwise be buying it" or "It's not taking anything away from anyone". Because you are really copying it, and not removing something that can then not be used/shared/sold, people think of it as more like photocopying something and taking home a reproduction of it than stealing the thing itself.

You're right, jackstraw. This is a society. A downloading, filesharing, bootlegging society.

fober
03-13-2007, 09:54 AM
While we're on this topic, just an FYI.

I'm suing anyone that has ever quoted a post of mine for illegal duplication of my thoughts without my consent.

The collective sum is set at

ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Dr_Evil.jpg/800px-Dr_Evil.jpg

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:55 AM
just because you CAN copy and distribute copyrighted material doesn't mean it's legal. Come on now. A traffic light can't physically stop me from driving through it when it's red so does that mean it's legal to do it?(bad analogy but hopefully you get the point). This is a society, there are rules that should be obvious even if we choose to break them.

I can't stand the "oh big media was just too lazy to get with the times". Companies like Sony have done exactly what you're accusing viacom of not doing and people had a fit. Whether viacom voluntarily or inadvertently didn't protect their media is irrelevent. It's still their property. It's their right to not give permission to display it for profit (which is indirectly what youtube does).

okay but at what point do you stop following broken laws? there is a tipping point where change starts to happen and this is it and everybody knows it. if i were to become the ceo of merge or matador or whomever, my very first act would be to make my entire roster available online ONLY. people who buy spoon or arcade fire records also happen to LIVE on the freaking internet. so why not exploit the synergy there? it's two great tastes that taste great together. the YouTube "problem" exists precisely BECAUSE the larger companies didn't get their shit together. as stated previously, where there is a vacuum, where there is a market need, there will be the impetus for SOMEBODY to try to fill it. i'm not saying viacom doesn't have a point, i'm saying their energies might be better spent coming up with their own version of YouTube. or else agree to a LICENSING agreement that might not give them the kind of PROFITS that they're used to. YouTube beat them to the punch with their version of a content delivery system and now viacom's just going to have to bite the bullet and try to catch up. if they want to stay in the game, that is.

fober
03-13-2007, 10:01 AM
if i were to become the ceo of merge or matador or whomever, my very first act would be to make my entire roster available online ONLY.

That would probably be your very last act, too.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:01 AM
that reminds me. I need to buy a Spoon album. thanks mob.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:01 AM
It's an industry risk. Like I mentioned, by beaming their product into people's homes and not having any way to keep track of it, they are risking illegal reproduction.

People stealing/sharing media is inevitable. It's not a tangible thing, so people justify it to themselves, i.e. "I wouldn't otherwise be buying it" or "It's not taking anything away from anyone". Because you are really copying it, and not removing something that can then not be used/shared/sold, people think of it as more like photocopying something and taking home a reproduction of it than stealing the thing itself.

You're right, jackstraw. This is a society. A downloading, filesharing, bootlegging society.


Sooooooo what are you saying? You realize it's wrong but you don't care? Stealing is inevitable so we people shouldn't complain about it? Viacom's taking a risk by broadcasting their property so they have no right to complain? Are you serious? Parking your car in SF carries a huge risk of it getting broken into so should we not bother prosecuting thieves because you put your car out there of your own volition?

But you're not quite right about this not being a tangible thing. copyright law is complex, but it does exist. It doesn't matter if the person stealing it would not have bought it otherwise. You can't seriously think that nobody would have bought it. Just because you may not be a pirate doesn't mean they don't exist.

fober
03-13-2007, 10:02 AM
Thread just got 5 stars for having the word "volition" in it.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:03 AM
maybe I should take this to the confessions thread, but I agree with Jack on this one (the comments to Hannah that is). Ouch.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 10:09 AM
I think you've misconstrued a bit.

Nowhere in that post does it say that I use those reasons to justify downloading. I was acknowledging that there are additional viewpoints to the situation. Basically what I meant is that this is always going to be a problem, because it doesn't have the same guilt factor than pocketing stuff at a grocery store. If you're a musician or a writer or anyone who creates a thought or attitude or sound rather than a physical object, there's the occupational hazard of people taking it and reproducing it as many times as they want.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it is.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:11 AM
okay but at what point do you stop following broken laws? there is a tipping point where change starts to happen and this is it and everybody knows it. if i were to become the ceo of merge or matador or whomever, my very first act would be to make my entire roster available online ONLY. people who buy spoon or arcade fire records also happen to LIVE on the freaking internet. so why not exploit the synergy there? it's two great tastes that taste great together. the YouTube "problem" exists precisely BECAUSE the larger companies didn't get their shit together. as stated previously, where there is a vacuum, where there is a market need, there will be the impetus for SOMEBODY to try to fill it. i'm not saying viacom doesn't have a point, i'm saying their energies might be better spent coming up with their own version of YouTube. or else agree to a LICENSING agreement that might not give them the kind of PROFITS that they're used to. YouTube beat them to the punch with their version of a content delivery system and now viacom's just going to have to bite the bullet and try to catch up. if they want to stay in the game, that is.

the youtube problem doesn't exist because larger companies didn't get their shit together. I am absolutely astonished that people can seriously hold this opinion. The youtube problem exists because people are taking copyrighted material and doing things with it that they're not legally entitled to do.

a couple decades ago thieves figured out how to capture transmitted garage door opener codes and use them to rob houses. garage door opener manufacturers eventually figured out a fix, but in the interim did these thieves have a legal right to take other people's property because the home owners didn't "get their shit together" quickly enough?

fober
03-13-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it is.

http://static.flickr.com/52/137199788_fecbaa379a_m.jpg

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 10:20 AM
Haring always reminds me of sesame street. heh.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:21 AM
I think you've misconstrued a bit.

Nowhere in that post does it say that I use those reasons to justify downloading. I was acknowledging that there are additional viewpoints to the situation. Basically what I meant is that this is always going to be a problem, because it doesn't have the same guilt factor than pocketing stuff at a grocery store. If you're a musician or a writer or anyone who creates a thought or attitude or sound rather than a physical object, there's the occupational hazard of people taking it and reproducing it as many times as they want.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it is.


k. but admitting that it will always be a problem is not really the issue. in the context of this discussion it sounded like you were trying to justify theft. Thieves will always be one step ahead. that doesn't mean the ones being stolen from are wrong for wanting to be protected by law.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 10:23 AM
that reminds me. I need to buy a Spoon album. thanks mob.

you're welcome. also i own nearly everything spoon has ever put out. ON VINYL. because i love them and want to support the things i care about. BUT were spoon to decide that they could save a lot of money and time and bullshit by releasing their material in an online format from now on, i would so be down with that. especially if they could pass those savings on to me, the fan. a likely result of this better directed energy is that it might free them up to be more creative, have bigger and better tours, better merchandising, etc. also, the #1 benefit to being online, whether you're viacom or itunes, is lowered overhead across the board. there is a reason why record stores are dying. there is a reason why video chains are going the way of the dinosaur. there are reasons why are we are having this discussion in the first place. in the future, EVERYTHING will be beamed straight to the home, on demand, 24/7. cheaper, faster, cleaner, better. it's a paradigm shift and real estate is for suckers anymore. "owning" a physical "copy" of any piece of media is not too far behind. mark my words here. each new day i am finding it less and less agreeable to pay a middleman out of my own "volition". and i'm not the only one.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:25 AM
I just burned all my iTunes downloads to CD this weekend so that I could listen to them in the car.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 10:26 AM
CD.....tee hee.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 10:29 AM
yeah and so you created your own artifact. and that's perfectly acceptable. but you couldn't have gone to the store and bought that. or perhaps you could have, but it's far easier to do it the way you did. you already own the content and can now manipulate it in any way you see fit. make a billion burned cd's. as long as you bought the song first, it doesn't matter. this is why itunes rules.

fober
03-13-2007, 10:29 AM
I don't think anyone disagrees with where we're headed mob roulette.

I don't have any DVDs at home and about 20 CDs I think.

Doesn't mean everybody has to hop along for the ride.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:31 AM
the next car I buy is going to be iPod compatible where I can change songs using controllers on the steering wheel and it will display song info on the dash. in fact this weekend I was tempted to get a new car just for that purpose then decided that making a little project out of burning, labeling, and storing 50 CDs was probably a more reasonable solution for the time being.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:33 AM
I can't wait for the day when all media comes in the form of a pill and all education is installed sub-consciously, and everyone is assigned a job and loves it.

Then maybe a few millenia after that we could all save the trouble of being awake at all and just be grown in farms and plugged into a big... um... what's the word I'm looking for.... uh.... rape zoo.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 10:35 AM
yeah and so you created your own artifact. and that's perfectly acceptable. but you couldn't have gone to the store and bought that. or perhaps you could have, but it's far easier to do it the way you did. you already own the content and can now manipulate it in any way you see fit. make a billion burned cd's. as long as you bought the song first, it doesn't matter. this is why itunes rules.

You can only burn a playlist containing a song from iTunes 7 times. It's only really that obnoxious if you want a bunch of copies of the same CD. Of course, it's never stopped anyone from importing it into another computer and burning copies there, or even just one copy and re-importing them onto the first computer, and if you change one song on the list, you can burn 7 more. But there are [attempted] caps on the number of times you can reproduce something. With iTunes anyway.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:41 AM
You can only burn a playlist containing a song from iTunes 7 times. It's only really that obnoxious if you want a bunch of copies of the same CD. Of course, it's never stopped anyone from importing it into another computer and burning copies there, or even just one copy and re-importing them onto the first computer, and if you change one song on the list, you can burn 7 more. But there are [attempted] caps on the number of times you can reproduce something. With iTunes anyway.

iTune's DRM bullshit is another example of these companies trying to get their shit together that people are furious about.

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:41 AM
why is it bullshit?

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 10:44 AM
its made from people.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 10:48 AM
Itunes DRM is total bullshit it works in essence but in forces you into the apple cult.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:50 AM
why is it bullshit?

Because hey, you bought it, why should you not be able to tranfer it to as many devices you want? what if you don't have an mp3 player and you want to burn it to CD a bunch of times because you're bad at taking care of them? You used to be able to do that before mp3's came out. Why can't you do it now? I mean you bought the damn song, why shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want with it as long as you don't give it to others?


(these are generic complaints, not mine).

TomAz
03-13-2007, 10:50 AM
http://www.netlash.com/dyn_new/UserFiles/Image/cultofmac2.jpg

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 11:59 AM
defamer nailed it:

A frustrated, posturing Viacom finally breaks down after months of "unproductive negotiation" about licensing fees for the interweb rebroadcast of its cherished content, suing Google and its infernal YouTubes for "massive intentional copyright infringement" for over a billion dollars in damages, a suit that could be quickly dropped should GooTube come back to the conglomerate with a number representing a fair value for allowing its users to share their favorite clips of crudely animated, foul-mouthed schoolchildren talking to an anthropomorphized piece of human excrement.

yep. also tom, you can get an install that will let you rock your mp3 player in your car for about two hundred dollars. maybe less. fry's did mine. just saying.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 12:07 PM
defamer nailed it:

A frustrated, posturing Viacom finally breaks down after months of "unproductive negotiation" about licensing fees for the interweb rebroadcast of its cherished content, suing Google and its infernal YouTubes for "massive intentional copyright infringement" for over a billion dollars in damages, a suit that could be quickly dropped should GooTube come back to the conglomerate with a number representing a fair value for allowing its users to share their favorite clips of crudely animated, foul-mouthed schoolchildren talking to an anthropomorphized piece of human excrement.
.


they certainly did nail it.
viacom wanted to be paid for their product. Youtube wouldn't pay what they felt was a reasonable amount to offset their losses so they sued for an arbitrary figure to make them stop or play fair. Youtube was profiting off of Viacom without compensating them.

Why is this so hard to understand?

fober
03-13-2007, 12:32 PM
Why is this so hard to understand?

BECAUSE EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE AND DOWNLOADABLE ITS THE NEW AGE GET WITH IT AND DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS AND MONEY IN GENERAL

I'm off to lunch:

ftp://lunch.foodnetwork.com/Steak_au_Poivre.zip

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 12:35 PM
I hate it when corporations get all corporationey

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 12:37 PM
they certainly did nail it.
viacom wanted to be paid for their product. Youtube wouldn't pay what they felt was a reasonable amount to offset their losses so they sued for an arbitrary figure to make them stop or play fair. Youtube was profiting off of Viacom without compensating them.

Why is this so hard to understand?

because i think it's backwards. i think Viacom likely wanted too much for their content and YouTube refused because it would kill their bottom line. i haven't researched this completely or anything, but i don't believe that YouTube was absolutely UNWILLING to pay. they're just at the forefront of a new technology and want to be treated fairly as well and basically just don't want to lose their place in line. and rightfully so i say. it's not necessarily stealing if the rules governing this new technology aren't exactly clearly defined yet. i'm not saying that the powers that be at Google are necessarily freedom fighters or anything, i just don't believe that this is a cut-and-dry copyright infrigement case. what i DO believe about this case is that Viacom is likely overstating the value of their content or else doesn't understand the ways that the game is changing. or, more likely they DO understand but possibly they think it's easier to do it this way, so that they don't get left out in the cold as well. for me, this basically has nothing to do with intellectual property and everything to do with commerce.

but i don't care really. and i don't pretend to be an expert on any of this. notice i use the words "maybe" and "likely" a lot here. i just think the idea of this lawsuit is funny. and it's lack of a cogent argument. the implications of this new chapter in the larger battle, however, are NOT a laughing matter to me. and they shouldn't be to anyone else either.

ok done.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Without Viacom youtube doesnt have shit for content except retarded 13 year olds lighting their junk on fire.....and limey documentaries.

menikmati
03-13-2007, 12:44 PM
Love how this all starts only when Youtube is wildly popular now....where's the part where they say they're gonna go after dailymotion, Veoh, numerous torrent sites and more. I smell...

blakely
03-13-2007, 12:46 PM
I have watched entire movies on google video and complete Tv shows on youtube.

yeah... thats how i catch up on my One Tree Hill.....





dont judge me......

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 12:49 PM
Love how this all starts only when Youtube is wildly popular now....where's the part where they say they're gonna go after dailymotion, Veoh, numerous torrent sites and more. I smell...

right. also i have watched content that technically belongs to several other companies on YouTube just this morning. why isn't HBO suing? or the record companies? or the artists themselves? i think i smell a RAT.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 12:51 PM
Whether viacom's demands were "reasonable" or not is irrelevant. That's how a market works. If youtube felt the price was exorbitant then they have every right not to pay, but then they have to quit distributing the product they're not paying for.

if you wanted to buy my car and I was asking for $1B you wouldn't buy it. Then I might lower my asking price, but if I don't and you still refuse to pay you can't go around driving my car anyway.

This has absolutely nothing to do with youtube being on the forefront of a new technology. They're hosting and distributing copyrighted images, stolen material. It's ILLEGAL without viacom's consent. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST THIS. There are. I'm not sure why you refuse to believe it. Youtube is allowing people to use viacom's property to promote itself. lot's of people flock to youtube to see talking pieces of shit. It's a value they're not paying for.

and OF COURSE VIACOM IS OVERSTATING THE VALUE. Nobody denies that. They knew they were never going to get $1B. It's an arbitrarily large number to create a smaller settlement or just make youtube quit doing what they're being sued for.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 12:52 PM
ok then. we shall see.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 12:53 PM
There are networks that post their own content on there. NBC does, I know for sure, and I'm sure others do as well. There are a million teasers and promos on there. Viacom ought to take a page out of everyone else's book and start utilizing it. It has the potential to be a huge marketing device.

Not that I'm condoning that. But you'd think they would have thought of that by now.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 12:53 PM
right. also i have watched content that technically belongs to several other companies on YouTube just this morning. why isn't HBO suing? or the record companies? or the artists themselves? i think i smell a RAT.

Because maybe they just haven't gotten around to it yet. Maybe they don't feel they're being cheated as much as viacom does. What does it matter what everyone else is doing? Viacom's got a case and they're suing. cartoons and music videos are much easier to put on youtube than HBO shows (and much more common), and record companies are not relevant.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 12:53 PM
HIIIIIIIIIDEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! children!

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 12:55 PM
get out your checkbook, justin.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 12:56 PM
They should pay me, Im a viral marketing Mach ine

codytwo
03-13-2007, 12:59 PM
The illegality of an action does not make it wrong or immoral. Copyright laws are completely outdated and don't serve the greatest number of people to the greatest extent. The welfare of society as a whole would, almost without question, be increased through a more lenient copyright system. Therefore, I do not respect the desires of anyone who seeks to restrict the flow of information into and out fo my computer.

fober
03-13-2007, 01:06 PM
right. also i have watched content that technically belongs to several other companies on YouTube just this morning. why isn't HBO suing? or the record companies? or the artists themselves? i think i smell a RAT.

I'm thinking sheer volume.


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

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 01:07 PM
The illegality of an action does not make it wrong or immoral. Copyright laws are completely outdated and don't serve the greatest number of people to the greatest extent. The welfare of society as a whole would, almost without question, be increased through a more lenient copyright system. Therefore, I do not respect the desires of anyone who seeks to restrict the flow of information into and out fo my computer.

I was in a workshop a few months ago and the heads of Rumblefish licensing and Om Records came in to give talks. I think they (and the recording industry in general) might have something more relevant to say regarding your view of copyright law.

and what are you suggesting in this case? That youtube can use anyone's property they want? Morals have nothing to do with this.
Judges aren't supposed to moralize.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Because maybe they just haven't gotten around to it yet. Maybe they don't feel they're being cheated as much as viacom does. What does it matter what everyone else is doing? Viacom's got a case and they're suing. cartoons and music videos are much easier to put on youtube than HBO shows (and much more common), and record companies are not relevant.

viacom's case is predicated on the fact that they think they have the most valuable content. and i'm not even sure i believe this to be true. there are plenty of more entertaining things to watch on the internet than south park reruns and music videos. and viacom doesn't even own all of those. so even if i grant you that viacom is quite possibly being brave by being the first to take a stand against this "horrible strain" of piracy, then you have to admit they're only doing it because they have no other business plan in place to distribute this content online. this is it.

and i agree with you, btw, on this point. it IS copyrighted material. it just seems rather small of them to react in this way, rather than being proactive and licensing the material for a nominal fee instead of an EXORBITANT one. it's really just free advertising for them, if you stop to think about it. filing suit is just shitty business in this case. especially when they would benefit SO MUCH MORE by being proactive and just getting with the program already. YouTube is nothing BUT advertising at its core. again, why not take advantage?

fober
03-13-2007, 01:10 PM
I was in a workshop a few months ago and the heads of Rumblefish licensing and Om Records came in to give talks. I think they (and the recording industry in general) might have something more relevant to say regarding your view of copyright law.

and what are you suggesting in this case? That youtube can use anyone's property they want? Morals have nothing to do with this.
Judges aren't supposed to moralize.

Stop trying to invade his personal logic space... or lack thereof.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 01:11 PM
godamm you people.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 01:16 PM
I was in a workshop a few months ago and the heads of Rumblefish licensing and Om Records came in to give talks. I think they (and the recording industry in general) might have something more relevant to say regarding your view of copyright law.

and what are you suggesting in this case? That youtube can use anyone's property they want? Morals have nothing to do with this.
Judges aren't supposed to moralize.

Judges aren't supposed to moralize, aren't supposed to pass legislation favoring huge media conglomerates because of lobbying funds. So I choose to cut out the middle man by infringing on their "rights" whenever and however I see fit.

And what did they say?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 01:17 PM
viacom's case is predicated on the fact that they think they have the most valuable content. and i'm not even sure i believe this to be true. there are plenty of more entertaining things to watch on the internet than south park reruns and music videos. and viacom doesn't even own all of those. so even if i grant you that viacom is quite possibly being brave by being the first to take a stand against this "horrible strain" of piracy, then you have to admit they're only doing it because they have no other business plan in place to distribute this content online. this is it.

and i agree with you, btw, on this point. it IS copyrighted material. it just seems rather small of them to react in this way, rather than being proactive and licensing the material for a nominal fee instead of an EXORBITANT one. it's really just free advertising for them, if you stop to think about it. filing suit is just shitty business in this case. especially when they would benefit SO MUCH MORE by being proactive and just getting with the program already. YouTube is nothing BUT advertising at its core. again, why not take advantage?

viacom's case isn't predicated on their believe that their content is more or less valuable than anyone else's. It's predicated on the fact that youtube is distributing stolen property. It's more than south park reruns, but even if that were it, why isn't that enough? Who cares what else there is that's more popular? And if viacom choses to not put their content on the internet (which they actually DO) then it's their business. You can't decide for them what they should have to do.

You're moralizing. If laws are unjust then hopefully they change, but while they're on the books we have to obey them. It doesn't matter if you think it's good advertizing for Viacom. it doesn't matter if Viacom's shooting themselves in the foot. It just doesn't matter. what matters is that the content belongs to them and they don't want it abused. It's really that simple.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 01:20 PM
You're moralizing. If laws are unjust then hopefully they change, but while they're on the books we have to obey them. It doesn't matter if you think it's good advertizing for Viacom. it doesn't matter if Viacom's shooting themselves in the foot. It just doesn't matter. what matters is that the content belongs to them and they don't want it abused. It's really that simple.

This is a central difference between my system of beliefs and yours. The entire concept that we must obey unjust laws simply because they are laws is ridiculous to me. When the legislative process and the legislators are as corrupted as they are, I find no reason to put the desires and motivations of their corporate sponsors above my own or anyone else's.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 01:23 PM
Judges aren't supposed to moralize, aren't supposed to pass legislation favoring huge media conglomerates because of lobbying funds. So I choose to cut out the middle man by infringing on their "rights" whenever and however I see fit.

And what did they say?


Good for you. I've never said you shouldn't do as you think is right. My only position in this discussion is that Viacom absolutely has a right to sue. some others here don't seem to understand what youtube is doing that's illegal, and they're basing they're beliefs on some sort of phobia of corporations.

And the licensing guy told us all about copyright law (mostly pertaining to music) and the Om Records guy was basically admitting that the current state to the music industry was doomed. We're likely heading into dark times where artists won't be able to make a living. Times will change and the industry has to reinvent itself somehow eventually, but we've likely got dark times ahead.

fober
03-13-2007, 01:24 PM
The entire concept that we must obey unjust laws simply because they are laws is ridiculous to me.

Just so we're clear, you're the one deciding whether or not laws are "unjust."


When the legislative process and the legislators are as corrupted as they are, I find no reason to put the desires and motivations of their corporate sponsors above my own or anyone else's.

I may agree with this statement, but we can be arrested for breaking their laws and I don't think we can arrest them for breaking any of ours.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 01:33 PM
Good for you. I've never said you shouldn't do as you think is right. My only position in this discussion is that Viacom absolutely has a right to sue. some others here don't seem to understand what youtube is doing that's illegal, and they're basing they're beliefs on some sort of phobia of corporations.

And the licensing guy told us all about copyright law (mostly pertaining to music) and the Om Records guy was basically admitting that the current state to the music industry was doomed. We're likely heading into dark times where artists won't be able to make a living. Times will change and the industry has to reinvent itself somehow eventually, but we've likely got dark times ahead.

"Dark times ahead." This kind of bullshit makes me laugh. We have a global network capable of distributing content almost instantaneously across the globe. We have the ability to produce music cheaply at a professional level. We have more creative infrastructure than at any time in the history of humankind. We have nothing but a glorious future free of record labels ahead of us, and the idea that artists will not be able to make a living and thusly will not create music is the BIGGEST CROCK OF SHIT IN THE WORLD. Artists have always been poor. Rich artists are by far the exception to the rule, and music will be made one way or another. I don't feel all that bad that it will be more difficult to exploit the art for financial gain.

And in regards to YouTube, they provide a service that I enjoy, and i support their continued existence. Part of what attracts me to them is the fact that they are a thorn in the side of a lot of huge corporations. I support them because they represent the future of the entertainment industry in a lot of ways, and I think that the laws should change to fit in the kind of medium they provide, rather than be used to further constrict them. My only qualm with YouTube is that it kind of sucks that they only get away with what they do because they are so large and powerful. I wish the same standards applied to everyone, but you take things the only way you can sometimes.

EDIT: I got a little off track, but you can apply everything I said about the music industry to the entertainment industry as a whole to some extent.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 01:34 PM
Just so we're clear, you're the one deciding whether or not laws are "unjust."

Am I?


I may agree with this statement, but we can be arrested for breaking their laws and I don't think we can arrest them for breaking any of ours.

Exactly.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 01:51 PM
"Dark times ahead." This kind of bullshit makes me laugh. We have a global network capable of distributing content almost instantaneously across the globe. We have the ability to produce music cheaply at a professional level. We have more creative infrastructure than at any time in the history of humankind. We have nothing but a glorious future free of record labels ahead of us, and the idea that artists will not be able to make a living and thusly will not create music is the BIGGEST CROCK OF SHIT IN THE WORLD. Artists have always been poor. Rich artists are by far the exception to the rule, and music will be made one way or another. I don't feel all that bad that it will be more difficult to exploit the art for financial gain.

And in regards to YouTube, they provide a service that I enjoy, and i support their continued existence. Part of what attracts me to them is the fact that they are a thorn in the side of a lot of huge corporations. I support them because they represent the future of the entertainment industry in a lot of ways, and I think that the laws should change to fit in the kind of medium they provide, rather than be used to further constrict them. My only qualm with YouTube is that it kind of sucks that they only get away with what they do because they are so large and powerful. I wish the same standards applied to everyone, but you take things the only way you can sometimes.

EDIT: I got a little off track, but you can apply everything I said about the music industry to the entertainment industry as a whole to some extent.


ummm. I'm gonna go ahead and believe the president of a sizeable record label on this one. You completely misunderstood. i never said music was dead. I never said people will stop making music. I said that it is an opinion (popularly held by the industry itself, and not the conjecture of some kid on the internet) that it is going to be increasingly difficult to make money on music for BOTH the musician and the support structure which helps distribute it. The fall of Intergroove Records was a pretty big deal for EDM. The digital medium is still in it's relative infancy.

You're right, most artists have always been poor, and that's not going to get any better because the record labels go under.

You are ignorant if you think a record label never helped anybody. They exist for a reason and they are still relevant even today. they don't just exist to cheat artists. They exist to promote. Larger artists on a label gain exposure for smaller ones, they join them on tours they add remixes to releases by big selling artists, etc. This is facilitated by a label.
The laughable bullshit is the generation of myspace idiots who don't understand shit and think they deserve everything for free.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 01:53 PM
"I am special, I am special. Look at me."

full on idle
03-13-2007, 01:57 PM
When you have a parking space, your risk of break-in is reduced.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 02:07 PM
ummm. I'm gonna go ahead and believe the president of a sizeable record label on this one. You completely misunderstood. i never said music was dead. i said that it is an opinion (popularly held by the industry itself, and not the conjecture of some kid on the internet) that it is going to be increasingly difficult to make money on music for BOTH the musician and the support structure which helps distribute it. The fall of Intergroove Records was a pretty big deal for EDM. The digital medium is still in it's relative infancy.

You're right, most artists have always been poor, and that's not going to get any better because the record labels go under.

You are ignorant if you think a record label never helped anybody. They exist for a reason and they are still relevant even today. they don't just exist to cheat artists. They exist to promote. Larger artists on a label gain exposure for smaller ones, they join them on tours they add remixes to releases by big selling artists, etc. This is facilitated by a label.
The laughable bullshit is the generation of myspace idiots who don't understand shit and think they deserve everything for free.

Why don't we deserve something for free that was free for thousands of years? A record label has a place in the new market, agreed. But it is a noticeably diminished one. What I fail to see is why I should give a shit if a huge media conglomerate can no longer make loads of cash in the same way that they used to. I can understand why a music industry insider might be threatened by the evolution of the marketplace, but using copyright laws to stifle that evolution is not only counterproductive for everyone involved, but is impossible to do on a fundamental level. A record label exists primarily as an intermediary between retailers of music and producers of music. That intermediary now has a drastically reduced role. The same process is occurring, on a smaller scale, in the visual medium as well. An enormous segment of the American population has been making their money from the disconnect between producers and consumers of media content. That stream of revenue is being closed rapidly. And that is for the best. It is time for us to act in the interest of the general public and reduce these ridiculous items of copyright legislation. Since that doesn't seem to be happening at all, the next best thing is to circumvent the law and challenge it on every level possible. I see YouTube as just another battle in a long war, in that sense. Forgive my grandiose analogy.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 02:09 PM
"I am special, I am special. Look at me."

No, you aren't. And no, I won't.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 02:12 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17349066/

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 02:16 PM
No, you aren't. And no, I won't.

Codytwo, I have it on reliable sources that J-$$$ is in fact special.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 02:21 PM
Jesus loves.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 02:23 PM
Everyone but you.

EDIT: And John Elway.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 02:23 PM
Jesus loves.

We actually had a bit of a falling out, and well, you were mentioned. He's not so keen on you at the moment. But he's the only one, I swear. Everyone else still thinks you're great.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 02:24 PM
Everyone but you.


Is that an original, or did you read it off a bumper sticker?

TomAz
03-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Here's a related question. say (for the sake of this question only) that Viacom is correct and that YouTube owes them some sum of money.

Does AEG have accessory liability? for facilitating the posting of YouTube videos on the Coachella board?

codytwo
03-13-2007, 02:31 PM
This is an example of the ridiculous nature of copyright protection to begin with. The purpose of copyright laws in the United States was originally to promote innovation through the assurance of the ability to profit for a limited amount of time. But when it becomes ridiculously easy to republish something or to publish a derivative work through any number of mediums, as it is today, it becomes an exercise in absurdity to differentiate between what can and can't be prosecuted.

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 02:32 PM
Is that an original, or did you read it off a bumper sticker?

4 life, I gots ur back.


Everyone but you.

EDIT: And John Elway.

That hurts....especially when you throw John in the mix. John Elway saved my life when I was a kid, your fucked up Cody. Elway is a good and beautiful human being. I hate you Cody.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 02:33 PM
That hurts....especially when you throw John in the mix. John Elway saved my life when I was a kid, your fucked up Cody. Elway is a good and beautiful human being. I hate you Cody.

Will both of you just go away, please?

J~$$$
03-13-2007, 02:37 PM
I am special (point to yourself)
I am special

Don't you see? (make binoculars with your fingers)
Don't you see?

Someone very special (hands out to the side, palms up)
Someone very special

'Cause God (point to heaven) made me (point to yourself)
God made me!

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 03:01 PM
This is an example of the ridiculous nature of copyright protection to begin with. The purpose of copyright laws in the United States was originally to promote innovation through the assurance of the ability to profit for a limited amount of time. But when it becomes ridiculously easy to republish something or to publish a derivative work through any number of mediums, as it is today, it becomes an exercise in absurdity to differentiate between what can and can't be prosecuted.

The laws may be more specific than you think. In 1994 copyright laws demolished hip hop (AND rap) as they tightened up on sampling rules and artists like jay-z and p-diddy became huge as the some of only ones who knew how to produce their own tracks from scratch. Hip Hip kinda sucked in the late 90's. In an ideal situation (which we sometimes actually do get close to) a judge does have room to interpret the law in a sensible way. The beastie boys won a landmark case (newton v diamond) in 2003 where a judge ruled that the sample they used was not a significant enough portion of the original song to constitute copyright infringement of the composition as a whole (they already had permission to use the sound itself in it's own context though). I did hear something about them recently losing another case though where a judge ruled that even a sample that is distorted such that the original sound charactistics are not apparent, it is still copyright infringement.

It's complex. it's not always cut and dry. i don't think you can outright say that all copyright laws are outdated and ridiculous. They work more often than not and no laws are perfect (except maybe Newton's)

However, when you're talking about wholesale ripping off something like a clip from South Park and allowing anyone on the planet to watch it for free, well it gets a tad less ambiguous.

semisonic
03-13-2007, 03:45 PM
In this particular litigation between Viacom and YouTube, there is a legitimate issue about whether YouTube's hosting of copyrighted material posted by other people violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. There are "safe harbor" rules in the legislation that could protect them from liability, although that defense didn't work for Napster when it got in trouble. Also, as has been discussed above, there is much room for argument about the extent of Viacom's damages. Those two wide-open issues may well be why the dispute wasn't resolved before litigation. The sides probably have widely divergent views about what would happen if this were to go to trial.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 03:48 PM
In this particular litigation between Viacom and YouTube, there is a legitimate issue about whether YouTube's hosting of copyrighted material posted by other people violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. There are "safe harbor" rules in the legislation that could protect them from liability, although that defense didn't work for Napster when it got in trouble. Also, as has been discussed above, there is much room for argument about the extent of Viacom's damages. Those two wide-open issues may well be why the dispute wasn't resolved before litigation. The sides probably have widely divergent views about what would happen if this were to go to trial.


This sound logic you're spewing is borderline offensive here, man.

semisonic
03-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Sorry. If it makes people feel better, I did come up with a TV pet peeve and some offensive stuff to say about hippies and hipsters. Oh, and I voted for the reverse mermaid. So, I'm still, you know, edgy when I want to be.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 04:04 PM
you sick pervert

codytwo
03-13-2007, 04:27 PM
However, when you're talking about wholesale ripping off something like a clip from South Park and allowing anyone on the planet to watch it for free, well it gets a tad less ambiguous.

In my mind, its not as clear that you should not be able to do this.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 04:46 PM
In my mind, its not as clear that you should not be able to do this.

Leave viacom out of the picture for a moment and think about whether
you would be OK with creating a show and then having some punk broadcast it to the planet. Do you not believe that this would hurt you financially?


I'll bet you're the type that rebroadcasts, gives descriptions and accounts of football games without the express written consent of the National Football League. You're going down.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 04:50 PM
If, in my current station in life, I created a show and someone broadcast it to the world, and there was a large enough audience for me to gain any kind of notoriety, I would welcome the opportunity. So would many people. This is the appeal of YouTube.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 04:52 PM
If I was Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker, and i was a gazillionaire from merchandising profits, and I was continuously producing a product that I was proud of enough to broadcast to millions of people every week, I wouldn't care one way or another who saw it or how.

If I was a soulless multinational corporation who saw a chance to increase my bottom line, I would have a different reaction.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 04:55 PM
If, in my current station in life, I created a show and someone broadcast it to the world, and there was a large enough audience for me to gain any kind of notoriety, I would welcome the opportunity. So would many people. This is the appeal of YouTube.

How good of you to bestow such gifts upon humanity (although I believe deep down you're still a sociopath, you're not fooling me)

However, it sounds as though you can imagine a time where you may not want your hard work distributed for free. Is this not the case?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 04:57 PM
If I was Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker, and i was a gazillionaire from merchandising profits, and I was continuously producing a product that I was proud of enough to broadcast to millions of people every week, I wouldn't care one way or another who saw it or how.

If I was a soulless multinational corporation who saw a chance to increase my bottom line, I would have a different reaction.


You're not entitled to make decision for Matt and Trey. They get to keep their mouths shut because that's what they pay viacom for, but even if they were greedy bastards, they should still be protected by law.

Who are you to say matt and trey are rich enough, you socialist.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 04:58 PM
If a large, soulless multinational corporation one day decided my work was worthy of its vast pool of resources, I suppose I would want to distribute it in any way that allowed me to continue to receive money from them. I wonder what would happen in a world wherein the entertainment industry wasn't run by soulless multinational corporations? Are you seeing my point?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 05:05 PM
If a large, soulless multinational corporation one day decided my work was worthy of its vast pool of resources, I suppose I would want to distribute it in any way that allowed me to continue to receive money from them. I wonder what would happen in a world wherein the entertainment industry wasn't run by soulless multinational corporations? Are you seeing my point?

I do see you're point, just don't agree with it. You're still moralizing.

Level with me now, cody. When you were younger.... were you touched inappropriately by a corporation? We need open discourse before the healing can begin.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 05:26 PM
How am I moralizing? The welfare of society as a whole increases with less enforcement of copyright regulations. The only people who benefit are those profiting off of a less efficient entertainment marketplace.

fober
03-13-2007, 05:30 PM
The welfare of society as a whole increases with less enforcement of copyright regulations.

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/ORlyOwl-WTF.jpg

codytwo
03-13-2007, 05:32 PM
I'm not making this up. There have been at least two papers published in the University of Chicago's Journal of Law and Economics supporting that point of view.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 06:01 PM
Sorry. If it makes people feel better, I did come up with a TV pet peeve and some offensive stuff to say about hippies and hipsters. Oh, and I voted for the reverse mermaid. So, I'm still, you know, edgy when I want to be.

This is a good thread and this made me laugh. Please check post #139 for an improper conjuction. Thanks.

suprefan
03-13-2007, 06:07 PM
They are pisseed cause all their video content on MTV.com just gets webripped and posted on youtube so nobody watches on their site. Also who watches MTV anymore? I side with Google and Youtube. They should be trying to make a deal with them and not just asking for money in this manner. They settled with Warner Bros and the NBA and made a deal right? How many lawsuits have been threatened or thrown at Youtube in the last year? Better to combine forces to make things better..

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 07:22 PM
I'm not making this up. There have been at least two papers published in the University of Chicago's Journal of Law and Economics supporting that point of view.

I'm curious as to how on earth these papers can justify the benefit to the arts resulting from no copyrights. I really am. I'm not going to go dig them up because they've only been vaguely referenced, but I am curious. For the moment I'll still support common sense and centuries of seemingly sensible people's opinions. Maybe someday I'll go to chicago and dig through their university's law library for those papers. While I'm there I'll solicit the opinions of the remaining old post-war bluesmen and their families what they think of copyright laws.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 07:36 PM
The research in those papers supports the idea that looser copyright right laws in general and specifically legalizing file-sharing results in an increase in total welfare. Welfare in this instance is a quantifiable economic principle that expresses the gain from participation in a transaction. If the gain to consumers due to file-sharing is greater than the loss to producers, then total welfare is increased.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 08:03 PM
seems like a short sighted scope. I doubt it addresses advances in the arts which will ultimately form the substance of those files that will be shared. It sounds like a student's paper. Good luck reducing art down to an economic formula. lower profit to the arts means greater welfare to the people? mmkay.

Loss to producers WILL translate into loss to the artists. I know I know I know, it's the corporations who you believe will be the only losers. Those evil corporations do their devilish corporationey things. Die, capitalists, die! Music and other media distribution does NOT simply exist purely for it's own sake. It's not like they could disappear and you'd be paying the artists directly, making them rich and happy. Who do you think owns the studios?(it's not all done on laptops, I assure you) Who maintains the relationships with the venues they tour at? Who provides health insurance to the band? Music is a business as well as an art. TV/Movies are an even bigger business.

I miss college.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:08 PM
How does a completely open and free flowing system of ideas do anything but help to advance art?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 08:13 PM
You have to have ideas out there to keep them flowing. You seem to have this faith that artists will always persevere for the benefit of humanity regardless of their compensation. A society that does not value art will stifle it. If they cannot make a living there will not be much art to advance. When artists are rewarded in a society art flourishes.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:21 PM
Artists will always be rewarded in society. By far the most profitable part of the music industry is selling an image. People want to be associated with the art they like. And thus, they will buy Bob Dylan lunch boxes and Bjork backpacks. And again, this idea that people will stop making music because Warner Bros won't write them a fat check at the end of the month is completely ludicrous. Yeah, it sucks for people who make a lot of money in teh music business and will have to find a new job. Tough luck.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:26 PM
Also, the University of Chicago's Journal of Law and Economics is one of the foremost economic journals in the world. If it prints something, it usually doesn't qualify as just "a student paper."

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 08:31 PM
it's been a long time. i shouldn't have left you.

codytwo makes several convincing arguments here re: copyright law, new media, and the entertainment industry as a whole. also agree with your assessment of what matt and trey would do. i doubt very much that they give a shit about this at ALL. and they're the ones actually PRODUCING the content.

tom's joke is also a valid question. if viacom can sue YouTube, by the same logic, can't they also sue any blog or board that either posts or facilitates the posting of the same content? that's a dangerous precedent right there.

which leads me to jackstraw. listen man, we can go back and forth about this all day and while i recognize and respect your defense of existing copyright laws, i'm not entirely sure you even see the other viewpoints that have been presented here. that scares me more than anything. sure don't want you on the jury should i ever be tried for anything. this is not a balck and white issue here. and the laws are broken and yes, they are out of date. how about let's not follow broken laws? let's change them instead. and since you mention chicago bluesmen, let me ask you this--who exactly screwed them out of royalties by utilizing flawed or non-existant contracts and unfair copyright laws? that's right, record companies. the people you so eagerly defend are the ones who created and then exacerbated this situation in the first place.

also don't cite hip hop when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. hip hop did not suck in the late nineties and jay-z has sampled more than ANYBODY. and puffy creating tracks from scratch? what the hell are you even talking about?

appreciate the discussion though. this was a great thread. thanks.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:35 PM
it's been a long time. i shouldn't have left you
holla

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 08:35 PM
Artists will always be rewarded in society. By far the most profitable part of the music industry is selling an image. People want to be associated with the art they like. And thus, they will buy Bob Dylan lunch boxes and Bjork backpacks. And again, this idea that people will stop making music because Warner Bros won't write them a fat check at the end of the month is completely ludicrous. Yeah, it sucks for people who make a lot of money in teh music business and will have to find a new job. Tough luck.

who the hell do you think distributes those images? Who markets and produces those bob dylan lunch boxes and bjork backpacks? Do you believe Bob and Bjork have time to do it themselves? Do Bob and Bjork possess these economies of scale that allow them to produce and distribute these things at a reasonable price? Not likely. Not to mention that once they even got a spark of popularity in your copyright free world they'd get ruined by counterfeiters anyway. You don't realize the massive amount of effort put forth by countless people to make these artists what they are.

If people don't get paid more to write music than they could make at a desk job then almost nobody would do it. What if you wanted a house? What if you wanted to put kids through school? How is he going to pay for these things? What people pay for crap like that is based on what the market will bear. If artists coulnd't afford them then most would do something else. If you don't want any of those things then hey, great for you, but an artist shouldn't have to forfeit all of these things for your sake (and they wont).

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:37 PM
I'm not sure where you were going with that hip hop comment, either. To my knowledge, Puffy sampled a lot of artists. Actually, scratch sample. He just rapped over songs that had already been made.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:40 PM
Codytwo, where you gonna work after school's up? Just wondering.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:43 PM
who the hell do you think distributes those images? Who markets and produces those bob dylan lunch boxes and bjork backpacks? Do you believe Bob and Bjork have time to do it themselves? Do Bob and Bjork possess these economies of scale that allow them to produce and distribute these things at a reasonable price? Not likely. Not to mention that once they even got a spark of popularity in your copyright free world they'd get ruined by counterfeiters anyway. You don't realize the massive amount of effort put forth by countless people to make these artists what they are.

If people don't get paid more to write music than they could make at a desk job then almost nobody would do it. What if you wanted a house? What if you wanted to put kids through school? How is he going to pay for these things? What people pay for crap like that is based on what the market will bear. If artists coulnd't afford them then most would do something else. If you don't want any of those things then hey, great for you, but an artist shouldn't have to forfeit all of these things for your sake (and they wont).

Okay, for millenia musicians only made money from what people were willing to throw them after a performance. That didn't dampen musical creativity. And your point about who manufactures those things and how much infrastructure is required is completely off-base. I'm not saying its wrong to make money off of music. I'm saying its inefficient to enforce the majority of copyright laws, and they exist at the behest of huge corporate lobbyists. At no point did I argue for the destruction of the modern economy in the name of artistic integrity. All I am saying is that there is a lack of utilization of the potential that our newfound interconnectivity affords us. And a lot of it is due to these ridiculous, cumbersome copyright regulations and frivolous lawsuits that keep popping up. This whole YouTube thing is just another example of corporate America squabbling over the spoils and letting a truly revolutionary concept go without being utilized to its full potential.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:44 PM
Codytwo, where you gonna work after school's up? Just wondering.

I'm not sure how this was meant. I'm also not sure where I'm going to work.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:45 PM
It was meant like a question, like if someone asked you a question, how that would sound. I'm just being honest.

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 08:48 PM
Feeling any better, FOI?

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:49 PM
I want to work somehow in concert promotion, so I'm working on getting into business school and getting an internship at Bumbershoot this year as we speak.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:54 PM
Good luck Cody Y.

Hannah Rain, only for the medicine I'm whacked out on, plus this Sonoma Cabernet. It's making me breathe. Cheers!

codytwo
03-13-2007, 08:55 PM
Cody Y?

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:55 PM
act like you know

full on idle
03-13-2007, 08:56 PM
codytwo acts like he didn't completely reveal himself last year

Hannahrain
03-13-2007, 08:58 PM
Good luck Cody Y.

Hannah Rain, only for the medicine I'm whacked out on, plus this Sonoma Cabernet. It's making me breathe. Cheers!

Shitty. If i were more awesome, I would make you some soup. Unfortunately, I am less awesome at the moment. But hooray for medicine that makes you at least think you feel better.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:07 PM
im so fucking confused.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:10 PM
You're not Cody Young going to school in Seattle that posted multiple photos of himself?

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:13 PM
My last name isn't Young. But that's funny.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:14 PM
And I didn't post any photos of myself. Photos were brutally hijacked from my MySpace and doctored VICIOUSLY.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:18 PM
oh wait I meant Cody L.

I got it twisted.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:20 PM
it's been a long time. i shouldn't have left you.

codytwo makes several convincing arguments here re: copyright law, new media, and the entertainment industry as a whole. also agree with your assessment of what matt and trey would do. i doubt very much that they give a shit about this at ALL. and they're the ones actually PRODUCING the content.

tom's joke is also a valid question. if viacom can sue YouTube, by the same logic, can't they also sue any blog or board that either posts or facilitates the posting of the same content? that's a dangerous precedent right there.

which leads me to jackstraw. listen man, we can go back and forth about this all day and while i recognize and respect your defense of existing copyright laws, i'm not entirely sure you even see the other viewpoints that have been presented here. that scares me more than anything. sure don't want you on the jury should i ever be tried for anything. this is not a balck and white issue here. and the laws are broken and yes, they are out of date. how about let's not follow broken laws? let's change them instead. and since you mention chicago bluesmen, let me ask you this--who exactly screwed them out of royalties by utilizing flawed or non-existant contracts and unfair copyright laws? that's right, record companies. the people you so eagerly defend are the ones who created and then exacerbated this situation in the first place.

also don't cite hip hop when you obviously don't know what you're talking about. hip hop did not suck in the late nineties and jay-z has sampled more than ANYBODY. and puffy creating tracks from scratch? what the hell are you even talking about?

appreciate the discussion though. this was a great thread. thanks.

first of all, we have not been going back and forth all day. I'm still waiting for the back. I see your viewpoints, but they're clouded with emotion. You have this stiffy in your pants about corporations and getting cheated. It's not about what's fair, it's about what the damn law is. Thank you for bringing up the chicago bluesmen. It demonstrates very clearly the emotion driven argument. You jumped right on the fact that the big business screwed them, but ignored the reason I brought it up which was to show how lack of copyright protection can hurt an artist. It was an argument against Cody, not an argument in favor of Viacom.

And as far as not obeying laws I don't like. Sure, great idea. Ya know, I don't like the fact that I got a ticket on the train for forgetting my pass. That's a stupid law. I don't think it's fair because I know tons of people that don't even buy passes and they haven't been caught, and they should have been using the money they pay that ticket enforcement officer to reduce fairs and keep the schedules. I'm just gonna not pay. And I'm gonna tell the judge I'm not paying it's because the law's not fair. Wish me luck.

Lastly, tell me you disagree with my take on late nineties hop hop, but do not tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Ask me what I'm talking about and I'll explain. (and by the way don't ever fucking tell me I don't know what I"m talking about with words I didn't even use, k-now?) I never said jay-z never sampled. In the early 90's hip hop was almost completely sample based. Groups like Public Enemy, ATCQ, EPMD, etc. leaned almost all their songs on not only sampled beats and sampled melodies from old blues and jazz. They raped the classic labels like Blue Note, Chess, Verve, etc. In the mid 90's tougher laws were enacted which made those types of samples way more expensive. It became far more common for hip hop producers to start programming their own beats, and by and large they were nowhere near as good. Producers jay-z and producers like p-diddy had to start making due with more obscure cheaper samples and crap beats, and synth based melodies became far more common. This is what turned the music bad IMO. I believe it wasn't as good. I don't like biggie, I don't like wu-tang, I don't like Jay-z. If you do then congratulations. Good for you. It's only after Jay-z and p-diddy became larger than life and rich beyond belief that they started leaning heavily back on the samples again because they could now afford them.
Disagreement is your right, but frickin ask me what I mean before telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:26 PM
Jackstraw94086 is my favorite.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:27 PM
Nothing I have said has been clouded with emotion. I have very clearly and concisely laid out my point of view on this subject. The example of getting a ticket on the train is different in the sense that you seem to take an issue with the manner of enforcement of the law, but not the law itself. I think you are mistaken about the late nineties hip hop thing, but thats a completely different issue. I can't think of a biggie song that doesn't sample something, and I don't think Jay-Z has ever been a producer to any real extent.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:27 PM
Also, I'm curious as to where you just found my last name...

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:39 PM
Okay, for millenia musicians only made money from what people were willing to throw them after a performance. That didn't dampen musical creativity. And your point about who manufactures those things and how much infrastructure is required is completely off-base. I'm not saying its wrong to make money off of music. I'm saying its inefficient to enforce the majority of copyright laws, and they exist at the behest of huge corporate lobbyists. At no point did I argue for the destruction of the modern economy in the name of artistic integrity. All I am saying is that there is a lack of utilization of the potential that our newfound interconnectivity affords us. And a lot of it is due to these ridiculous, cumbersome copyright regulations and frivolous lawsuits that keep popping up. This whole YouTube thing is just another example of corporate America squabbling over the spoils and letting a truly revolutionary concept go without being utilized to its full potential.

Are you for real? you're telling me I'm completely off-base about economies of scale and manufacturing cost and infrastructure? What is it you do for a living? I'm gonna give you a freebie and let you pretend you didn't say that.

I think you're wrong about how musical creativity has never been dampened, especially if you want to spread the range to over millenia. I never suggested that music ever died, just that it's not moved as fast when people aren't ready to value it. Even if you discount technology as an accelerating factor, I believe music has advanced far more in the last hundred years than it has over the last millenia. Hundreds of years ago there wasn't the impetus behind music advancement as there is these days (again, even after considering technology). You'd probably have to go back as far as the Enlightenment with the development of styles like baroque and classical to find another example of music moving this fast. In times when people are excited about music and throw more money at it, music moves quicker.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:40 PM
I didn't say you were wrong about it, I meant it was off-base in the sense that it relates in no way to what I was talking about.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:43 PM
You announced your last name, last year. Don't play ignorant.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:45 PM
But you got it wrong a minute ago, and then got it right. What did you use to fact check?

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:47 PM
My baraiiiin

I got your last name mixed up with another last name. When I thought about it, I sorted it out. They're not that far off in relation to eachother, as far as words go.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:50 PM
first of all, we have not been going back and forth all day. I'm still waiting for the back. I see your viewpoints, but they're clouded with emotion. You have this stiffy in your pants about corporations and getting cheated. It's not about what's fair, it's about what the damn law is. Thank you for bringing up the chicago bluesmen. It demonstrates very clearly the emotion driven argument. You jumped right on the fact that the big business screwed them, but ignored the reason I brought it up which was to show how lack of copyright protection can hurt an artist. It was an argument against Cody, not an argument in favor of Viacom.

And as far as not obeying laws I don't like. Sure, great idea. Ya know, I don't like the fact that I got a ticket on the train for forgetting my pass. That's a stupid law. I don't think it's fair because I know tons of people that don't even buy passes and they haven't been caught, and they should have been using the money they pay that ticket enforcement officer to reduce fairs and keep the schedules. I'm just gonna not pay. And I'm gonna tell the judge I'm not paying it's because the law's not fair. Wish me luck.

Lastly, tell me you disagree with my take on late nineties hop hop, but do not tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Ask me what I'm talking about and I'll explain. (and by the way don't ever fucking tell me I don't know what I"m talking about with words I didn't even use, k-now?) I never said jay-z never sampled. In the early 90's hip hop was almost completely sample based. Groups like Public Enemy, ATCQ, EPMD, etc. leaned almost all their songs on not only sampled beats and sampled melodies from old blues and jazz. They raped the classic labels like Blue Note, Chess, Verve, etc. In the mid 90's tougher laws were enacted which made those types of samples way more expensive. It became far more common for hip hop producers to start programming their own beats, and by and large they were nowhere near as good. Producers jay-z and producers like p-diddy had to start making due with more obscure cheaper samples and crap beats, and synth based melodies became far more common. This is what turned the music bad IMO. I believe it wasn't as good. I don't like biggie, I don't like wu-tang, I don't like Jay-z. If you do then congratulations. Good for you. It's only after Jay-z and p-diddy became larger than life and rich beyond belief that they started leaning heavily back on the samples again because they could now afford them.
Disagreement is your right, but frickin ask me what I mean before telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

hahahaha.

it IS dress barn, isn't it?

full on idle
03-13-2007, 09:52 PM
It's a better dis when you have a point. I'm just being honest.

mob roulette
03-13-2007, 09:53 PM
i still don't buy his hip hop argument. but whatever. i'm done.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:55 PM
Nothing I have said has been clouded with emotion. I have very clearly and concisely laid out my point of view on this subject. The example of getting a ticket on the train is different in the sense that you seem to take an issue with the manner of enforcement of the law, but not the law itself. I think you are mistaken about the late nineties hip hop thing, but thats a completely different issue. I can't think of a biggie song that doesn't sample something, and I don't think Jay-Z has ever been a producer to any real extent.


Read, man.
please point out where I said nobody in the late nineties sampled. Do it. I said they generally had to use more obscure samples, they generally had to manufacture their own beats instead of using classic breaks, and they have to produce synth based melodies. Do I need to diagram this out? There's a difference between sampling a sound from a song and an entire break (see Newton v. Diamond from previous post) The latter became far more expensive in the late nineties.

And when refering to Jay-z and p-diddy I mean their production in general, not necessarily what they themselves sat down in front of a mixer and made with their own hands. They both have had many people help out with the physical production.

EDIT: actually I just did read where I explicitly called p-diddy a producer and went back and added Jay-z in the same sentence. My bad. I should have said "their production" instead of explicitly calling them both producers.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:55 PM
dress barn? wtf?

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 09:57 PM
dress barn? wtf?

bug's just being stupid. I'll respond to him when he makes a point.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 09:58 PM
Read, man.
please point out where I said nobody in the late nineties sampled. Do it. I said they generally had to use more obscure samples, they generally had to manufacture their own beats instead of using classic breaks, and they have to produce synth based melodies. Do I need to diagram this out? There's a difference between sampling a sound from a song and an entire break (see Newton v. Diamond from previous post) The latter became far more expensive in the late nineties.

And when refering to Jay-z and p-diddy I mean their production in general, not necessarily what they themselves sat down in front of a mixer and made with their own hands. They both have had many people help out with the physical production.

Point out where I said you said that. And most of Notorious B.I.G.s beats use very prominent samples from classic soul. But this argument isn't really what I was talking about at all.

Lounge Fly
03-13-2007, 10:09 PM
I don't know anyone who watches YouTube instead of TV or DVDs. if they do they're poor cheap bastards who aren't worth a dime to the advertisers anyway.

I agree with you on this. Hell I just got out of college recently and even my cheap ass friends didn't do this.
Also then you think they could make this argument for DVR or Tivo. The main reason I use DVR is so that I can FF through every single commercial and watch an hour show in possibly less than 40 minutes.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:10 PM
You said "I can't think of a biggie song that doesn't sample something," which seemed to me as if you thought I said biggie never sampled.

Sampling a single percussive sound or orchestral or horn hit is a lot cheaper (if you even bother to pay) than sampling a recognizable break.

just for shits and giggles I just browsed through Life After Death and there's hardly any recognizable sampled sounds in there aside from Hypnotize and Mo Money Mo Problems (which perhaps only coincidentally are the biggest hits from that album)

full on idle
03-13-2007, 10:11 PM
Turn off that biggie and put on some nas, slice.

full on idle
03-13-2007, 10:12 PM
And, therein, I give up trying to derail this thread.

jackstraw94086
03-13-2007, 10:16 PM
Actually I'll derail it for you.

I remember when Codyone revealed his last name. It was indirect because he was really revealing the etymology of his board member name, codyone.

You see, he admitted that he really liked fish, and that his last name was yone.

codytwo
03-13-2007, 10:17 PM
thats what i thought she was referring to with the Y.

mob roulette
03-11-2008, 01:03 PM
This was a good thread. Rape zoo. Hahahaha.

Anyhoo. This is what we used to talk about. Intelligent discourse and such. I miss it. Please care.

Also bump. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23577857/) For what it's worth. Thoughts?

TomAz
03-11-2008, 01:11 PM
I looked at this and thought, wtf? it's only March 11.