| DavidRFuller 14.03.2007 16:35 |
link |
| Mr.Jingles 14.03.2007 16:55 |
YouTube was the only place where you could find all the complete episodes of Beavis & Butthead uncensored because the DVDs edited some of the funniest part out. Aside from that the DVDs don't include all the episodes. FUCK YOU VIACOM! |
| deleted user 14.03.2007 16:58 |
"Viacom feels, in essence, that Youtube is somehow making gains of hosting of Viacom material and thus making a profit, an oppinion that is quite frankly wrong." Wait... how is that not true ? From link : "Do you think your company deals in areas that are of interest to the YouTube community? Would you like to take part in bringing awareness to your products in a way that stands out from the typical Internet site? Do you have a campaign budget of at least $25,000?" Since all those videos have got to take up a massive amount of space, YouTube has to make money SOMEHOW to host all that stuff and turn a profit. And, obviously, advertisers are paying. They probably wouldn't pay if no one came to the site. If Viacom owned assets generate large interest and bring people to the site, that gives YouTube the ability to charge so much for advertising - because it gives potential advertisers an idea of who will see their advert, and how many people. Viacom is pissed because YouTube is making money doubtlessly, off stuff they own. I don't give a fuck if Viacom didn't actually "make the content". They still own it. Of course, it's doubtful that Viacom could charge a lot to have people subscribe to a pay-per-view service. But they could start their own site and put higher quality or same quality versions of the same video on it. Is it right for them to not allow their stuff on YouTube or in their economical advantage ? There are arguments about YouTube giving them "free" publicity. I can understand that. But if the assets are Viacom's (doesn't matter if their CEO stared in the film, they still OWN the rights to the material) - it is up to THEM if they'll allow it or not. Their choice. It may not actually be in their financial advantage - but it's up to them. Unless my economics are off - which they might be. But if they own rights to it - what makes it evil for them to not allow YouTube rights to show the stuff ? |
| user name 14.03.2007 17:09 |
If you own it, you have the right to do whatever you like with it. You can destroy it, exploit it, and everything in between. |
| john bodega 15.03.2007 11:23 |
Fuck Viacom. I don't know what the actual case is here... but fuck Viacom, I don't care. |
| Deacon Fan 15.03.2007 15:31 |
To be honest, I really don't care anymore. I blame copyright attorneys for coming up with every way imaginable to screw the public (their client's customers). I remember when music videos were promotional. Free advertising for albums. Artists and record companies should be pleased that their work was chosen... for Beavis & Butthead to make fun of.. that equals sales of their product. Or to be used in a movie... that equals sales of their product. But nowdays half the movies and tv shows that come out don't include the original music because the greedy fuckers who own the rights charge too much.. charge too much for something where they could potentionally be making more royalties themselves. It's stupid and only the public, their customers end up suffering because we get shit like edited B&B episodes... I say to hell with all big business and greedy artists and managers. YouTube is free promotion for product as far as I see it. If some cheapskate wants shitty quality, mono versions of stuff converted from Flash in order to save a little cash buying a DVD set or whatever, it's their loss.. I personally buy stuff when I'm able to preview it at places like YouTube, or in MP3 form, and I'm sure many others do too. Case in point: I stumbled across Bette Davis singing 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" on the Andy Williams Show on YouTube. I had no idea this song, or this performance existed.. it's the funniest thing ever. Thanks to someone posting it and people commenting, I found out it's an extra on the special edition DVD (I only had the original version... another way we get screwed by companies). So I promptly ordered the special edition. YouTube clips = sales. |
| user name 15.03.2007 15:58 |
Undetermined wrote: To be honest, I really don't care anymore. I blame copyright attorneys for coming up with every way imaginable to screw the public (their client's customers). I remember when music videos were promotional. Free advertising for albums. Artists and record companies should be pleased that their work was chosen... for Beavis & Butthead to make fun of.. that equals sales of their product. Or to be used in a movie... that equals sales of their product. But nowdays half the movies and tv shows that come out don't include the original music because the greedy fuckers who own the rights charge too much.. charge too much for something where they could potentionally be making more royalties themselves. It's stupid and only the public, their customers end up suffering because we get shit like edited B&B episodes... I say to hell with all big business and greedy artists and managers. YouTube is free promotion for product as far as I see it. If some cheapskate wants shitty quality, mono versions of stuff converted from Flash in order to save a little cash buying a DVD set or whatever, it's their loss.. I personally buy stuff when I'm able to preview it at places like YouTube, or in MP3 form, and I'm sure many others do too. Case in point: I stumbled across Bette Davis singing 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" on the Andy Williams Show on YouTube. I had no idea this song, or this performance existed.. it's the funniest thing ever. Thanks to someone posting it and people commenting, I found out it's an extra on the special edition DVD (I only had the original version... another way we get screwed by companies). So I promptly ordered the special edition. YouTube clips = sales.Your logic is incredibly flawed. If these businesses were so "greedy (oh, isn't that typical to just blame businesses for everything)," then they would pick the option that would turn more profits. If you say that free advertising will turn more profits, then they'd do that. It's always the fault of businesses and attorneys. Everybody, jump on the bandwagon. |
| Deacon Fan 15.03.2007 17:15 |
I'm suggesting they try a different approach rather than this strict guarding of their content, and suing everyone which obviously isn't working. And I think I made some valid points and even gave a true example of my idea at work. But maybe that's me.. perhaps I'm wrong and the world is just full of leeches.. when I like something, I try to buy it to support the artist.. but a full preview is always nice. Consumers get screwed left and right. A person pays $40 a month for internet, $50 a month for cable or satellite.. which is mostly funded by commercials anyway. The big companies are in fact lining their pockets whilst consumers keep paying for more advertising. There are some smart solutions going around.. TV networks offering their shows for free online, with built-in commercials.. this is a great idea but I'm sure it's a major headache in the rights department. Soon enough we'll be hearing about some production company suing ABC because they didn't give permission for web use or some such nonsense. What profit are they losing after it's already been aired free on broadcast television? None. Hell, even Queen getting in a tizzy over 'Ice Ice Baby'. They shoulda been thankful their 10 year old song was resurrected and brought to a new audience for purchase. |
| deleted user 15.03.2007 17:34 |
Consumers aren't getting "screwed" if it's just frivolous entertainment. I can see getting upset about high prices if they raise the price of a necessity of something that causes people to go hungry or lose their job or otherwise actually suffer in more than just an "O, poo - now I can't watch "x" show" kind of way. Why are prices so high ? Because people pay it. If people wouldn't pay $40 for Internet, they would not be selling it because they would lose money and that's not really the goal for them. If the $50 cable subscription is mostly shit, don't pay for it. I think the television networks get funding from commercials - but I don't think the service provider gets any of this (if they do, I've never heard about it). Even if it's "free promotion" - it's up to the owner. You can't just take an artist's painting that they've hidden out from under their bed and put it in a show because you think "it's in their best interest". If they own it, it doesn't matter if they're passing up the offer of a lifetime - it's their choice to decide. |
| Deacon Fan 15.03.2007 21:01 |
Well maybe they're extra-protective of their work since it's the last fucking thing on Earth that isn't made in China. I'm sorry that some struggling artists might be harmed by people checking out their work for free.. the big ones certainly aren't suffering, regardless of what they say. I heard Aerosmith complaining recently that their back catalog is "worthless" now because of file sharing. Bullshit. Most of the young or new artists I check out online are actually taking the right approach.. giving samples of their work free anyway. Perhaps when they hit it big they'll become greedy assholes like everyone else. We live in a fucked-up world controlled by big businesses who either screw consumers with their greed or screw consumers with their cheaply labored product made in China. Cut costs in every way, charge more and more, sue, sue sue, threaten, add logos, scramble DVDs til they're unplayable, fuck up CDs til they're unplayable, chop up the artist's work to add more advertising, and yes, people have the choice not to buy.. but in reality, stuff is shoved down our throats constantly. What's a guy to do when his DVD player 'breaks' (ie; won't descramble the latest bullshit encryption anymore)? Go to Wal Mart and buy one of 10 models all made in the same factory in China and with different 'brand' names slapped on them. There's no way to avoid it. So they've got us. I'm not gonna say anymore. It'll all be in my manifesto. |
| user name 15.03.2007 22:36 |
Undetermined wrote: Well maybe they're extra-protective of their work since it's the last fucking thing on Earth that isn't made in China. I'm sorry that some struggling artists might be harmed by people checking out their work for free.. the big ones certainly aren't suffering, regardless of what they say. I heard Aerosmith complaing recently that their back catalog is "worthless" now because of file sharing. Bullshit. Most of the young or new artists I check out online are actually taking the right approach.. giving samples of their work free anyway. Perhaps when they hit it big they'll become greedy assholes like everyone else. We live in a fucked-up world controlled by big businesses who either screw consumers with their greed or screw consumers with their cheaply labored product made in China. Cut costs in every way, charge more and more, sue, sue sue, threaten, add logos, scramble DVDs til they're unplayable, fuck up CDs til they're unplayable, chop up the artist's work to add more advertising, and yes, people have the choice not to buy.. but in reality, stuff is shoved down our throats constantly. What's a guy to do when his DVD player 'breaks' (ie; won't descramble the latest bullshit encryption anymore)? Go to Wal Mart and buy one of 10 models all made in the same factory in China and with different 'brand' names slapped on them. There's no way to avoid it. So they've got us. I'm not gonna say anymore. It'll all be in my manifesto.God, you're ridiculous. You seriously have no idea how business works. Go to business school instead of joining the anti-corporate bandwagon. |
| Deacon Fan 16.03.2007 00:29 |
link |
| john bodega 16.03.2007 06:08 |
I was under the impression they're only doing this because Youtube is in competition with iFilm, which was owned by Viacom?? Maybe someone was lying to me!! |
| john bodega 16.03.2007 06:09 |
And iFilm is shit. |