Viacom Orders Google to Remove 100,000 YouTube Videos
After months of discussions concerning copyrighted videos, Viacom has asked Google to remove in excess of 100,000 videos from YouTube. Although YouTube has been subpoenaed by both Paramount and Fox, and has been sued at least once in federal court, this is the first blanket takedown notice from an American media company against the site. Last year, a Japanese publishing group requested the removal of approximately 30,000 videos. "Today, Viacom informed YouTube that over 100,000 additional unauthorized clips of its video content – representing 1.2 billion video streams – must be removed immediately from its site," read Viacom's press release. "After months of ongoing discussions with YouTube and Google, it has become clear that YouTube is unwilling to come to a fair market agreement that would make Viacom content available to YouTube users." Viacom's release went on to allege that the companies have yet to implement filtering tools that were promised in October 2006, after Google bought YouTube. Viacom also alleges that Google and YouTube retain all revenue from their video sites. "The recent addition of YouTube-served content to Google Video Search simply compounds this issue," the release says.This is not the first time that Viacom has had troubles with YouTube. In October 2006, Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, asked YouTube to remove much of its Comedy Central content. YouTube complied, although many videos from Comedy Central shows remained available, and there were rumors that a tenative agreement had been reached. But Viacom's direct and public request directly to Google is troublesome for YouTube's business model, especially given that Viacom has been a prominent participant in Google's video ads test. So while Viacom endorses Google's video ads model, it is no longer willing to tolerate copyright infringement on a massive scale. Moreover, Viacom is not willing to be held hostage by YouTube's large audience, or Google's attempts to use that scale as a bargaining chip. Google had stated previously in an SEC filing that copyright concerns, particularly over video, could force the company to change its business plan. But in public, Google has implied that it holds the upper hand in negotiations with content owners. "We are encouraging copyright owners to submit content to us and then to measure how many fans, how many tremendous viewers, what that community is… that's a very, very qualified viewer," Google CEO Eric Schmidt said during the company's Q4 2006 conference call yesterday. Viacom, however, apparently believes it makes its content accessible enough without YouTube's help. "We have great respect for and loyalty to our audiences. We host more than 130 authorized web sites where millions of fans visit and interact with our content. Our internet portfolio has more visitors than any other entertainment company and we are always seeking distribution relationships to ensure that any of our products and services are easily accessible on every platform," the release read. Update: In an interview with the Mercury News, Viacom's counsel says Viacom had reached the point of "zero tolerance," after sending YouTube tens of thousands of takedown notices since the video-sharing site went live more than a year ago. "We are asking to get paid," Fricklas said. "Our content is very valuable and we think that has obviously contributed to YouTube's growth and to Google.'' Staci Krmaer at Paidcontent says Viacom was also upset because they wanted to control ad placement around their children's programming on YouTube. Update #2: Marketwatch's Ben Charny reports that Fox isn't planning to issue a similar takedown notice. Update #3: Statement from a YouTube rep: "It's unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows. We have received a DMCA takedown request from Viacom, and we will comply with their request. We take copyright issues very seriously. We prohibit users from uploading infringing material, and we cooperate with all copyright holders to identify and promptly remove infringing content as soon as we are officially notified. We will continue to work with content partners large and small to provide them with a platform to promote their content and engage and grow their audiences." |
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link
Comments (16)
"... YouTube's passionate audience which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows."
Perhaps he should have said "passionate criminals". That is what they are, right? Anyone who has recorded a complete Viacom TV show and uploaded it for distribution to everyone did break the law, right?
Just because something is easy to steal and distribute on a massive scale does not justify it's stealing and distribution.
Suppose I steal Google's GMail code and implement it in a frameset on my web server. Is this okay with them?
Posted by Joe Alien | February 2, 2007 4:29 PM
Picky, picky. I mean Google and YouTube aren't hosting stolen content for the money, right? Hey,wait a minute...you mean they are??!!
Posted by Nobama | February 2, 2007 9:19 PM
How much do you think the amount of free advertising that Viacom has recieved from youtube would be???
Posted by darkman | February 5, 2007 11:26 PM
"The recent addition of YouTube-served content to Google Video Search simply compounds this issue," the release says.
What the strange world!
Posted by Used car | February 8, 2007 8:46 AM
First off, "stealing" files is no different from photocopying pages from a book at your local library. If Google personally posts an unlicensed file onto a sponsored site, then yes I do believe this to be copyright infringement.
However if these files are posted by individuals who visit the site then it is not; rather the site acts as a medium to provide free speech and press (distribution of information) to the public.
Finally if you want to talk about a company which exploits art for great profit, i think that Viacom takes the cake. MTv, though a signifigant contributor into the mid-nineties, is now a culture killer which cannot be sided with by any reasonable individual. As time has gone by Mtv has taken music, filterred out it's impurities, and refined it into mediocre generic refuse that offers about as much thought stimulation as an ad on some Viacom billboard that u will inevitably pass on your way to wherever you are driving because the marketting empire most likely owns all of the billboards in your hometown.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:02 PM
First off, "stealing" files is no different from photocopying pages from a book at your local library. If Google personally posts an unlicensed file onto a sponsored site, then yes I do believe this to be copyright infringement.
However if these files are posted by individuals who visit the site then it is not; rather the site acts as a medium to provide free speech and press (distribution of information) to the public.
Finally if you want to talk about a company which exploits art for great profit, i think that Viacom takes the cake. MTv, though a signifigant contributor into the mid-nineties, is now a culture killer which cannot be sided with by any reasonable individual. As time has gone by Mtv has taken music, filterred out it's impurities, and refined it into mediocre generic refuse that offers about as much thought stimulation as an ad on some Viacom billboard that u will inevitably pass on your way to wherever you are driving because the marketting empire most likely owns all of the billboards in your hometown.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:03 PM
First off, "stealing" files is no different from photocopying pages from a book at your local library. If Google personally posts an unlicensed file onto a sponsored site, then yes I do believe this to be copyright infringement.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:04 PM
First off, "stealing" files is no different from photocopying pages from a book at your local library. If Google personally posts an unlicensed file onto a sponsored site, then yes I do believe this to be copyright infringement.
However if these files are posted by individuals who visit the site then it is not; rather the site acts as a medium to provide free speech and press (distribution of information) to the public.
Finally if you want to talk about a company which exploits art for great profit, i think that Viacom takes the cake. MTv, though a signifigant contributor into the mid-nineties, is now a culture killer which cannot be sided with by any reasonable individual. As time has gone by Mtv has taken music, filterred out it's impurities, and refined it into mediocre generic refuse that offers about as much thought stimulation as an ad on some Viacom billboard that u will inevitably pass on your way to wherever you are driving because the marketting empire most likely owns all of the billboards in your hometown.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:07 PM
First off, "stealing" files is no different from photocopying pages from a book at your local library. If Google personally posts an unlicensed file onto a sponsored site, then yes I do believe this to be copyright infringement.
However if these files are posted by individuals who visit the site then it is not; rather the site acts as a medium to provide free speech and press (distribution of information) to the public.
Finally if you want to talk about a company which exploits art for great profit, i think that Viacom takes the cake. MTv, though a signifigant contributor into the mid-nineties, is now a culture killer which cannot be sided with by any reasonable individual. As time has gone by Mtv has taken music, filterred out it's impurities, and refined it into mediocre generic refuse that offers about as much thought stimulation as an ad on some Viacom billboard that u will inevitably pass on your way to wherever you are driving because the marketting empire most likely owns all of the billboards in your hometown.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:09 PM
oops, guess the comments DID go through.
BTW-What "a" strange world.
-Darkman, good point.
-Sharing is not stealing. Remember Kindergarten?
-Internet ads are optional interruptions which fill empty space and fund a free service. Cable television ads are unavoidable and fund an already paid for product.
-Copyable code is available to use and legal as long as changes are made, and these changes are basically inevitable if you are placing them into a personal website with your own code and files. If you are referring to Hacking, that is an entirely different matter as there is a difference between multimedia and secured data.
-Finally: who the hell would email you?
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 13, 2007 4:25 PM
Money grubbing bastards. That's all it's about.
"Oh shit...Google is preventing us from making .00010% more profit than we should be...LETS SUE 'EM!!"
Posted by Psycopompous | March 13, 2007 4:59 PM
NO DOUBT!Google and You Tube need more stuff from Viacom than Viacom from them!It's the same for all the others creators.This is Business and money.Forget the video with no contents they doesen't lead the YOU TUBE and GOOGLE incomes .You know what? Even the advertisers on those sites know it.As a marketer i can affirm that it's been a long time sine they are informed of the valuable content.Those contents are by far more focused,measurable and commercially valuable so...PROFITABLE!It's Money,profits for nothing.Time to pay Mr Mr!
Posted by DArcy | March 14, 2007 3:22 PM
laughable...
Please send all hate mail to:
Address:
1515 Broadway
New York, NEW YORK 10036
Official Website:
http://www.viacom.com/ Phone:
+1 212 258-6000
Posted by Not given | March 14, 2007 5:12 PM
Bling Bling,
As a designer I see market firms as a nessesary evil comprised of those who didn't look past the dime a dozen bracket that is business and marketting. Yes money does make things go around in accordance to power, and yes we do need expendable individuals to sell our products, but money grubbers do nothing but bring down the progress of humanity for their own selfish device. This is not a matter of money; it is a matter of culture, voice, and entertainment.
BTW- You would be more likely to find work if you learned to speak and write the English language. You may as well be an underpants gnome.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 14, 2007 7:25 PM
Bling Bling,
As a designer I see market firms as a nessesary evil comprised of those who didn't look past the dime a dozen bracket that is business and marketting. Yes money does make things go around in accordance to power, and yes we do need expendable individuals to sell our products, but money grubbers do nothing but bring down the progress of humanity for their own selfish device. This is not a matter of money; it is a matter of culture, voice, and entertainment.
BTW- You would be more likely to find work if you learned to speak and write the English language. You may as well be an underpants gnome.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 14, 2007 7:26 PM
Keeps happenning, damned post button. BTW- I meant "market-ting" in case anyone tries to be smart.
Posted by xShAdYxJoNx | March 14, 2007 7:31 PM