I think they're just getting started. Scary thought, but I believe it's true.
They'll continue to bleed for a while, sure. I don't think that Viacom or any of the other plaintiffs in other actions will win the $$ they've filed for.
It seems obvious that we're an older generation that doesn't quite "get it," but by example...remember how when we were younger, we *lived* by radio? We always had a radio going, no matter what. Kids today..not at all. NAB has a couple panels on this very issue this year. Kids are going straight to the time-shifted stuff via podcast and music via legal or illegal downloads. Radio is at an all-time low and sinking. Many adults listen to webcast vs radio, and they're getting more and more subscribing every day.
Television will hit the same result at some point. It's being minimized every day. Look at our own community here...people want free, and they're willing to steal to get it.
Advertising is getting cheaper on the smaller, and more expensive on the bigger end. Who wants to watch Leno live when they can watch whatever/multiple windows on youtube? But the real issue of course, is "who wants to watch Leno live when you can watch it commercial-free on youtube, anytime you want?" That's the scary part.
Advertising will likely become cheaper and cheaper, and eventually youtube will have to find a revenue model that works, but I do believe they've got the captive market, and will continue to find such a market. They've done more in a few months than AtomFilm.com did in a year, simply because of market drive. Maybe they'll sell the mailing lists, maybe they'll offer dual models (revenue and free) or....? But I do believe they're here, along wth other similar distributions, to stay. Not sure that's a good thing, but...
I'm confident that they'll find a way out of this lawsuit at some level, and equally confident that they'll find a means of commoditizing their offering. Their biggest hurdle is to figure out a means of preventing illegal uploads. They've killed their Director program in hopes of stemming the flow somewhat, but that too, has failed so far.
Who knows...maybe they'll buy Viacom. :-) (not likely)

I would look at mp3.com for a similar model - at least in terms of offering a free service vs. paid: when mp3.com started, some indie musicians were supposedly making 5-6 figures off of download paybacks alone, but the question was, where did mp3.com get the money to pay, if they even did pay (I never followed the details of it, so it may have all been representative money, not actual paychecks).

YouTube will face the same thing - it will have to offer a paid version, which will eventually be dominated by large studios, production companies and networks. The free public version will fade into oblivion, at least if YouTube has to start paying lawsuits and other bills.

Eventually the net will be no different from network TV. We'll pay for access to it, pay for programming/downloads, and most people won't be able to afford to advertise on it.

That's my guess at least.

I wonder how many of us realise just how much the genie is out of the bottle. Think about Apple's iPhone, seems you can stuff your legal iTunes music into the thing.
Well why bother, there's a way smarter 3G phone coming onto the market and it scavanges free music for you. You just tell it what you'd like on your phone, minimum bitrate etc and whenever it finds a tune being played on an internet radio channel it save it to flash for you, slowly filling your phone with free music. No doubt someone will work out that the process can be automated from digital radio broadcasts as well.

Bob.

Here's the thing I don't get about You Tube. How do you find videos you're interested in? The search engine's a joke (astonishing, considering it's now owned by Google!). Is it really just from "the community" spreading the word?

If my high school kids are any indication, YouTube isnt going anywhere. IMO, YouTube is truly word of mouth advertising for videos. Viral if you will. The problem is that most people are looking to kill time with SHORT videos (3-5 minutes.) I seriously do not see anyone sitting in front of the computer for long periods of time streaming a low bit rate movie especially when kids know quicker ways to download better quality illegally.

Whether youtube makes money or not, or is a stupid or brilliant marketing device, it is a great thing and is another miracle of the Digital Age. Just like the VCR in the ‘70s, it is threatened by the rabidity of Hollywood/Viacom, et al. Sony beat Hollywood in the 70s and made the future better for everybody, especially us in this forum. I only hope Youtube/Google wins too (and makes m/billions, as Sony did.)

The article:

>>>Media giant Viacom (VIA, news, msgs) is charging that the video-sharing site, now owned by Google, has shown 160,000 of its videos without permission.<<<

They're gonna have a tough time pulling this one through.
First is proof regarding the given number. Then, it's the USERS who MAY or MAY NOT be showing video, not YouTube. They just offer, what is as of now, a completely legal and valid service. It just happens to be the #1 service for users to share videos easily (and one of many).
Good for them!!


>>>In buying YouTube, Google bought a business model largely based on infringement, Hughes said. Google's Book Search Library Project also suggests a corporate disregard for intellectual property, he added.<<<

Ha, Model based on infringment? Is this similar to why most only have a handfull of operating system choices, office applications, etc?
Or your "wide variety" of "choices" in radio/tv-cable/interent? I see the youtubes of the world born more as RESULTS of bullish biz practices. A result of this "clearchannel" route taken. I'm in utoobs corner as of now, even if they're as "corporate" as the next.

No - it's a service and completely legal. The only targets they can act on are individuals alone (and that is one helluva lawsuit to undertake).

Really though, it isn't "replacing" TV, DVD/Film at all...if anything it's an extension of it all. The premise of a lawsuit like this is complete BS.

I think they're just getting started. Scary thought, but I believe it's true.
They'll continue to bleed for a while, sure. I don't think that Viacom or any of the other plaintiffs in other actions will win the $$ they've filed for.
<<<

I agree, it's just beginning. but it's not scary ...not at all.

>>>It seems obvious that we're an older generation that doesn't quite "get it," but by example...remember how when we were younger, we *lived* by radio? We always had a radio going, no matter what. Kids today..not at all. NAB has a couple panels on this very issue this year. Kids are going straight to the time-shifted stuff via podcast and music via legal or illegal downloads. Radio is at an all-time low and sinking. Many adults listen to webcast vs radio, and they're getting more and more subscribing every day.
Television will hit the same result at some point. It's being minimized every day. <<<

Well wait a sec, Radio has BEEN at an all time low for quite some time - (and it can kiss my clearchannel). Utoobs aren't to blame, nor internet radio. They can only blame themselves - 90% of radio is bought and sold, scripted SH*T. Their own doing, services like utoob (and many others) are just a valid and legal technological result (more will follow - hopefully).

>>Look at our own community here...people want free, and they're willing to steal to get it. <<<

Huh?

>>>Advertising is getting cheaper on the smaller, and more expensive on the bigger end. Who wants to watch Leno live when they can watch whatever/multiple windows on youtube? But the real issue of course, is "who wants to watch Leno live when you can watch it commercial-free on youtube, anytime you want?" That's the scary part.<<

Who would watch LENO period?, is a better question. I'd rather watch some new sketch comedy from some amatuer's video (good or bad - it's not Leno).
or see some old commercials from my days as a kid. Or my friends live concert, or ...dang...anything!!

I joke about that but there's some truth there - the crap shoveled out on tv today might not be able to compete with the ease and variety of media found on vid sharing sites. There's one plausible answer though for them to step things up and compete - STOP REPLAYING/REPACKAGING THE SAME TIRED CRAP - STOP PRODUCING COMPLETE SH*T presented in faux gold fleece. You want to know why "kids" like uboobs of the world...it offers more interesting content, 24/7, easily.
if you don't feel the same, you're either out of touch (too old?), or aren't searching correctly.

What about Tivo, should that product be under the microscope as well?
It's a valid and legal product (that just so happens to let us skip past the ads piling up between shows). If so then how about my cable provided DVR (same tool - same toy).

Utoob, tivo...etc...etc. None of them are replacing tv/dvd/film to the degree you're mentioning. It's a simple extension.
there's catching something interesting on utoob/like services, and there's sitting with your fav tv show/dvd/film on your $10k gold-plated HDDDD tv.
the two can co-exist (and i hope the Viacoms fall flat on their arse with games like this - it seems all they are willing to do is go through our pockets looking for loose change at this point. Pathetic.).

This whole suit is a farce and even the KIDS know it (that's one reality they should be more concerned about - their future couch potatos).

But if the Viacom suit fails completely then surely it will set a precedent and YouTube will become a free-for-all. Content producers like me will have little chance of protecting their copyright.

I for one am concerned at Google getting too big for it's boots where intellectual property rights are concerned and I wouldn't mind someone giving them a bloody nose to keep them in check.

>>This whole suit is a farce and even the KIDS know it (that's one reality they should be more concerned about - their future couch potatos).<<

Add: Then again, I also think we'd see a quality of life improvement if we just had radio - but ran well (BCC: beforeclearchannel of course).

"They just offer, what is as of now, a completely legal and valid service."

Ummmm, isn't that what napster said?

How can a service one offers be completely legal when it offers it's users the ability to commit crimes?

Ummm, as of now it IS a valid and legal service (and they are not the only ones). Sorry, that statement stands.

Let's take another approach. Where and how easily are you ever going to find this playing on TV/cable ? Go ahead, send me the showtimes ANYTHING like this is on.

Random examples:











*btw, you could have a Tonight show marathon that could never reach this level of entertainment).

This and a poorly encoded copies of Family Guy [insert the show you missed last night here] is NOT a speed bump in Viacoms street.

But let me guess, you don't get it. Ah well...just go buy a 3rd ExxTreMe-HDD TV and fret over youtube vs the state of entertainment sales.

The Viacoms have created the youtubes - rather than moving with the times and expanding horizons (which the majority would love to see happen) they're reaping what they sow. The "kids" want more and I don't blame 'em.

But Matlock is (still) on!! , and Desparate Actresses, and 3 hour ads for "Idiots Gone Wild #74", and workout machines galore!!! Don't forget gems from channels like Oxygen, Lifetime and sci-fi channel, how about channels dedicated to reruns...all day/all night, Channels dedicated to Seinfeld and Frasier episodes (for the completely retarded), or news channels with anything but real/honest news.
...etc - ad nauseum... Crrrrap is there aplenty!!

But grrrrr...it's this "youtube problem" that needs addressing first and foremost. They're looking out for you and I (sarcasm firmly on)

I say screw Leno ;)P

>> How can a service one offers be completely legal when it offers it's users the ability to commit crimes?

The supreme court has already answred that, I think. In the VCR wars, they court ruled that there was at least 1 legal use for VCRs - time shifting. So for UTube, is there at least one legal use for their service?

Once can make same argument about photocopy machines. Develop a Cheney-esque 1% rule, that is, if there is a 1% chance that photocopiers or YouTube can be misused, then ban them. You could also band internet service providers, because there is a at least a 1% chance that the service enables people to commit crimes.

YouTube is particularly culpable because they knowingly allow copyrighted material to reside on their equipment.

The real problem is how to protect and enforce copyright in the digital millineum. Can't prosecute all the violators, so go after a few and hope that scares everyone and also any deep pockets you can find to make it worhwhile.

>>>> The "kids" want more and I don't blame 'em<<<

They just want attention, and since they have no talent whatsoever, all they can do is upload stolen content, or attempt to do idiotic human tricks which are not funny at all 99% of the time..

Although there are some legit uses for it, Youtube is mostly the worst TV has to offer ( either fake reality 1/2 shows, or actual TV content, which is why they are getting sued ) in a crapy blurry/blotchy format. So your argument doesn't really fly.

Can anybody explain to me, what kind of person has nothing better to do, and wastes their time copying and uploading TV shows and commercials.

As for your examples. You could see stuff like that, and all the "shocking" autopsy footage, and really, all sorts of stuff on Manhattan's public access TV, 20 years before Youtube appeared.
Nothing new here. Same old crap, only this time in a blurry/blotchy/low res. format.

>>If my high school kids are any indication, YouTube isnt going anywhere. IMO, YouTube is truly word of mouth advertising for videos. Viral if you will. The problem is that most people are looking to kill time with SHORT videos (3-5 minutes.) I seriously do not see anyone sitting in front of the computer for long periods of time streaming a low bit rate movie especially when kids know quicker ways to download better quality illegally.<<

Not necessarily. Take my 16 year old. We were PVR-ing syndicated reruns of South Park, which he likes to watch. He found a site that streamed South Park episodes, in YouTube quality. He stopped watching the PVR-d episodes on the TV, he'd rather just sit in front of the computer to watch. He really doesn't watch TV by himself at all.

I was just waiting for this to happen to youtube. Viacom had been sitting back and waiting for google to develop software to removed copyright material (I still dont see hoe that will work, since my anti-spam eamil does not work half the time) since last year. Since google did not deliver on the deadline with the softwareand negs failed they wanted youtube to pull all the viacom clips. Since then they have found even more on the site.

I dont think youtube will be a napster and be shut down but I do think youtube will evolve into a different website because of this lawsuit. I think it will make google more strict on copyrighted material going on the site and limit the amount of material on the site (70% of youtube is copyright material from my observations on the site) I've actually posted several videos on this copyright issue on my youtube account well before this lawsuit occurred.

MarkApsolon

I think the bigger question is what happens with the judicial precedence for responsibility *if* Viacom somehow wins.

YouTube's terms of service are explicit about copyrights:

"C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein"

That should legally make the user responsible for their own actions and use of the site, not YouTube - much the same way the phone company isn't held responsible for an individual or organization using their phone system to plan a crime.

So what would happen to user agreements in other situations if Viacom were to prevail? Basically it could set a precedent for any company or individual to be held responsible for any crime committed by a user, attender, or participant in their website, services, events or products.

It is a violation of copyright laws to post a copy of "ER" or an NBA game on YouTube or any website, without permission. But why should Viacom stop at YouTube when seeking to place blame? Why not hold AT&T or Comcast responsible for allowing it to be broadcast over their network pipes? Why not hold Apple and Microsoft responsible for making software that allows people to view copyrighted material?

There is a point at which individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions, and be held individually accountable. I'm all for protecting copyrights and intellectual property, but we are quickly becoming a country that not only defers responsibiltiy, but also tries to make a living off of blaming someone else.

If Viacom thinks YouTube can stay in business while paying them a Royalty then they should have bought YouTube rather than letting Google getting it. They didn't because they know that there is not the revenue to support much in the way of Royalties, and just like the song companies their aim is to close all forms of distribution save their own channels and I'm sorry to tell Viacom that just won't work.

The YouTube format and media via download or computer streaming is the way ahead and buying DVDs or going to the Cinema will soon follow radio down the tube (sic, YouTube?). These studios need stop winning and get competitive! Let the MPAA have a web site where we all can get legal tempting clips and then offer us downloadable movies for a sensible cost (99c a view or $4.99 for keeps is what I think the market could bear).

Jaydeee:

After watching your selections, I now have an irresistible urge to go out and buy a Mellotron. I also have a strange craving for a hot dog every time I pass by an abandoned drive-in site. I'll pass on the pizza, though.

Just been looking at Jaydees clips and I'm thinking, go ahead Viacom - pull your garbage. There's good stuff out there.

On the Mcniel-Lerner report last night the supposedly knowledgeable lady analyst said she didn't think Viacom presented a very solid case.
JJK

The scuttlebutt among Google employees (my neighbor) is that this is simply a way for Viacom to get GoogleTube to commit to licensing and royalty terms. They have been "talking" ever since Google bought YouTube.

The newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) said that Google's defense will be the "Safe Harbor" provision in the DMCA. They may win, if it ever gets to a trial. Napster tried but couldn't claim the safe-harbor defense because Napster was collecting and indexing the location IP addresses of all the copied materials.