Comments on: Viacom cuts off nose to spite face http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:40:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: hanfsamen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-466993 hanfsamen Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:26:47 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-466993 They went even further, removing material that didn’t belong to Viacom because Viacom could be bother to verify the stuff they wanted removed was actually infringing. They’ve even complied with requests to identify individuals who post material. They went even further, removing material that didn’t belong to Viacom because Viacom could be bother to verify the stuff they wanted removed was actually infringing. They’ve even complied with requests to identify individuals who post material.

]]> By: design http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-464582 design Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:36:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-464582 What baffles me the most is that "the music industry" is a supranational entity. There is a supranational entity, named "the music industry", and it is both big and concrete enough to sue a country that doesn't play for 'its' interests. That is a lost battle, that there is a cartel that, in our heads, represents the whole "music industry" of the world, and speaks for all the people related to music. What baffles me the most is that “the music industry” is a supranational entity. There is a supranational entity, named “the music industry”, and it is both big and concrete enough to sue a country that doesn’t play for ‘its’ interests.
That is a lost battle, that there is a cartel that, in our heads, represents the whole “music industry” of the world, and speaks for all the people related to music.

]]> By: Doublethought http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-454913 Doublethought Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:01:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-454913 It's not the first time when content companies believe that when someone doesn't do things exactly their way, it's illegal. Viacom slapped YouTube and parent company Google with a lawsuit, seeking more than $1 billion in damages. As far as I know, Google has fulfilled its obligations under the DMCA, promptly removing material afterreceiving a valid notice. They went even further, removing material that didn't belong to Viacom because Viacom could be bother to verify the stuff they wanted removed was actually infringing. They've even complied with requests to identify individuals who post material. Unfortunately, the first rule, if you are going to sue someone is "do they have deep pockets?" If the answer is yes, one does not need to even consider points 2 through 10 which deal with trivialities like whether anyone was harmed. It’s not the first time when content companies believe that when someone doesn’t do things exactly their way, it’s illegal. Viacom slapped YouTube and parent company Google with a lawsuit, seeking more than $1 billion in damages. As far as I know, Google has fulfilled its obligations under the DMCA, promptly removing material afterreceiving a valid notice. They went even further, removing material that didn’t belong to Viacom because Viacom could be bother to verify the stuff they wanted removed was actually infringing. They’ve even complied with requests to identify individuals who post material.
Unfortunately, the first rule, if you are going to sue someone is “do they have deep pockets?” If the answer is yes, one does not need to even consider points 2 through 10 which deal with trivialities like whether anyone was harmed.

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Exploding TV: No more remote clicking http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-344568 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Exploding TV: No more remote clicking Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:22:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-344568 [...] realized recently that my kids simply do not surf TV channels; they watch what they want to watch and they [...] [...] realized recently that my kids simply do not surf TV channels; they watch what they want to watch and they [...]

]]> By: Vic Perotti » Content Control under fire! http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-323234 Vic Perotti » Content Control under fire! Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:22:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-323234 [...] We have Viacom sending 100,000 take-down notices to YouTube, including some videos Viacom is pulling out of the public domain without even having viewed them. Viacom’s shareholders ought to start up a suit right now. This is the stupidest marketing move in a long time. Jeff Jarvis puts it succinctly in a post that ends “Damned fools.” Terry Heaton also lays it down. And then we have Steve Jobs asking the music publishers to give up on DRM, although Job’s piece also has some special pleading that (imo) weakens it. [...] [...] We have Viacom sending 100,000 take-down notices to YouTube, including some videos Viacom is pulling out of the public domain without even having viewed them. Viacom’s shareholders ought to start up a suit right now. This is the stupidest marketing move in a long time. Jeff Jarvis puts it succinctly in a post that ends “Damned fools.” Terry Heaton also lays it down. And then we have Steve Jobs asking the music publishers to give up on DRM, although Job’s piece also has some special pleading that (imo) weakens it. [...]

]]> By: » YouTube Generation sixtysecondview: Sixty second interviews from pr, media and politics http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-320312 » YouTube Generation sixtysecondview: Sixty second interviews from pr, media and politics Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:35:12 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-320312 [...] This weekend I noticed that Viacom announced it was going to remove its content from YouTube. Here’s Jeff Jarvis’ view on that decision. I also remembered a quote from Rupert Murdoch about everyone over the age of 25 being ‘digital refugees’, in other words living in a land we didn’t fully understand that was the natural home of the young. My personal experience is that YouTube is already a feature of family life. At the moment it’s the pets and animals section of YouTube that gets the laughs, but in the future TV shows and bands turning their back on platforms like it may miss out on impressing my kids. I can imagine the type of discussions going on in Viacom HQ between the here-and-now arguments of those citing the court of law and copyright infringement versus those citing the court of public opinion and marketing potential. Looks like the lawyers won and it’s difficult to say from afar who is right. All I do know is that there is a generation growing up with very different experiences and expectations and if you aren’t where they want you, when they want you in the form they want you, you’ll be toast. [...] [...] This weekend I noticed that Viacom announced it was going to remove its content from YouTube. Here’s Jeff Jarvis’ view on that decision. I also remembered a quote from Rupert Murdoch about everyone over the age of 25 being ‘digital refugees’, in other words living in a land we didn’t fully understand that was the natural home of the young. My personal experience is that YouTube is already a feature of family life. At the moment it’s the pets and animals section of YouTube that gets the laughs, but in the future TV shows and bands turning their back on platforms like it may miss out on impressing my kids. I can imagine the type of discussions going on in Viacom HQ between the here-and-now arguments of those citing the court of law and copyright infringement versus those citing the court of public opinion and marketing potential. Looks like the lawyers won and it’s difficult to say from afar who is right. All I do know is that there is a generation growing up with very different experiences and expectations and if you aren’t where they want you, when they want you in the form they want you, you’ll be toast. [...]

]]> By: Jake http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319868 Jake Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:19:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319868 I think that in many respects you're exactly right, however part of the issue (I used to work for a Viacom division FWIW) is that Google is one of just a handful of companies that's capable of monetizing traffic. Viacom content can be found on dozens if not hundreds of ad-free sites across the web; it's just that Google/YouTube have--especially since Davos--been making noises about selling ads on their site, and apparently there have been disputes between Viacom & Google in terms of how revenue would be shared and who would sell the ads (I have no knowledge about specifics here). YouTube is one of many, many nearly identical sites. The possibility of its owners selling ads against someone else's content without permission is what makes it special in this case. The promotional benefits--or potential backlash--while still murky at this point, are simply not as critical as the outraged ("but what about the children?") Jeff claims because the same content can readily be found elsewhere. Frankly I think it was the tone of Jeff's original post that set the media hearts aflutter rather than its substance or intent. I think that in many respects you’re exactly right, however part of the issue (I used to work for a Viacom division FWIW) is that Google is one of just a handful of companies that’s capable of monetizing traffic. Viacom content can be found on dozens if not hundreds of ad-free sites across the web; it’s just that Google/YouTube have–especially since Davos–been making noises about selling ads on their site, and apparently there have been disputes between Viacom & Google in terms of how revenue would be shared and who would sell the ads (I have no knowledge about specifics here).

YouTube is one of many, many nearly identical sites. The possibility of its owners selling ads against someone else’s content without permission is what makes it special in this case. The promotional benefits–or potential backlash–while still murky at this point, are simply not as critical as the outraged (“but what about the children?”) Jeff claims because the same content can readily be found elsewhere.

Frankly I think it was the tone of Jeff’s original post that set the media hearts aflutter rather than its substance or intent.

]]> By: Eric http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319687 Eric Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:37:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319687 You guys are, perhaps intentionally, missing the point in Jeff's post. Some of you guys are speculating about the reasoning behind Viacom's decision without evidence to support your contention. The question isn't who owns the content. The question isn't whether or not Viacom has a right to control distribution. There's no question Viacom owns the content. Viacom controls the distribution. Viacom has the power and authority to prevent Youtube from providing that content on Youtube's website. The question that Jeff is presenting is whether or not it makes sense from an advertising/marketing standpoint to cut off this possible promotional tool. On that question, I agree with Jeff. Sure, Viacom protects their own product, which many of you readers zealously seek to also protect. However, Viacom also prevents the development of a possible revenue source by stopping people who would not have otherwise watched their content via their own existing television stations or websites. Thus, the question Jeff is asking is does shutting down such a source of possible advertisement make business sense in the long run? I agree that the answer is no. You guys are, perhaps intentionally, missing the point in Jeff’s post. Some of you guys are speculating about the reasoning behind Viacom’s decision without evidence to support your contention.

The question isn’t who owns the content. The question isn’t whether or not Viacom has a right to control distribution. There’s no question Viacom owns the content. Viacom controls the distribution. Viacom has the power and authority to prevent Youtube from providing that content on Youtube’s website.

The question that Jeff is presenting is whether or not it makes sense from an advertising/marketing standpoint to cut off this possible promotional tool. On that question, I agree with Jeff. Sure, Viacom protects their own product, which many of you readers zealously seek to also protect. However, Viacom also prevents the development of a possible revenue source by stopping people who would not have otherwise watched their content via their own existing television stations or websites. Thus, the question Jeff is asking is does shutting down such a source of possible advertisement make business sense in the long run? I agree that the answer is no.

]]> By: Jake http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319671 Jake Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:10:15 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319671 Roger, The music videos are Viacom's property, period, and most are (or will be) available at iFilm, which Viacom owns. I don't buy the argument that intellectual property is by definition community property just because the public thinks it should be. If they own it, it is theirs to use as they see fit. Furthermore, I can understand why Viacom in particular would want to take a stand because a fair amount of its content across the MTV Networks division (especially Comedy Central, MTV, and VH1) can be enjoyed in 3 or 5 minute chunks. Now having said that, there are probable (but as-yet completely unsubstantiated) benefits associated with promoting content on YouTube or similar sites--in addition to reducing the risk of PR disasters similar to that incurred by the record industry with its periodic cease-and-desist order shotgun blasts into the sky. However the above all implies that this isn't just a negotiation tactic as others have pointed out. In contrast to a lot of content companies, Viacom is starting to learn that it has to keep its lawyers and MBAs on a leash if it expects to fundamentally understand the internet, much less learn to make money, which still looks highly unlikely at present for any incumbent. Roger,

The music videos are Viacom’s property, period, and most are (or will be) available at iFilm, which Viacom owns. I don’t buy the argument that intellectual property is by definition community property just because the public thinks it should be. If they own it, it is theirs to use as they see fit.

Furthermore, I can understand why Viacom in particular would want to take a stand because a fair amount of its content across the MTV Networks division (especially Comedy Central, MTV, and VH1) can be enjoyed in 3 or 5 minute chunks.

Now having said that, there are probable (but as-yet completely unsubstantiated) benefits associated with promoting content on YouTube or similar sites–in addition to reducing the risk of PR disasters similar to that incurred by the record industry with its periodic cease-and-desist order shotgun blasts into the sky.

However the above all implies that this isn’t just a negotiation tactic as others have pointed out. In contrast to a lot of content companies, Viacom is starting to learn that it has to keep its lawyers and MBAs on a leash if it expects to fundamentally understand the internet, much less learn to make money, which still looks highly unlikely at present for any incumbent.

]]> By: jackstone http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319622 jackstone Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:18:26 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-319622 Jeff, you've got a teenage son who has never seen Jon Stewart's The Daily Show? ...Who's the fool? Jeff, you’ve got a teenage son who has never seen Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show?

…Who’s the fool?

]]> By: jim moore http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318833 jim moore Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:01:15 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318833 I agree with Jeff J.--Viacom is cutting of its nose and perhaps other parts of its anatomy. One of my videos was taken down--and it did not violate Viacom's copyrights. Now, do I love Viacom more or less? I agree with Jeff J.–Viacom is cutting of its nose and perhaps other parts of its anatomy. One of my videos was taken down–and it did not violate Viacom’s copyrights. Now, do I love Viacom more or less?

]]> By: Roger http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318731 Roger Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:00:57 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318731 What irks me is that it's not just clips from shows like The Daily Show that are being removed. Thousands of music videos have also been pulled. Why? Because they were recorded off of MTV or VH1 -- in some cases, 10 or 20 years ago, back when MTV and VH1 actually played music videos -- and have the network's logo in the corner. Viacom seems to think they "own" all music videos that ever aired on one of their networks. Can someone please explain to me how uploading a 3-minute music video from 1992 on YouTube infringes on Viacom's ability to do business and make money? What irks me is that it’s not just clips from shows like The Daily Show that are being removed. Thousands of music videos have also been pulled. Why? Because they were recorded off of MTV or VH1 — in some cases, 10 or 20 years ago, back when MTV and VH1 actually played music videos — and have the network’s logo in the corner. Viacom seems to think they “own” all music videos that ever aired on one of their networks. Can someone please explain to me how uploading a 3-minute music video from 1992 on YouTube infringes on Viacom’s ability to do business and make money?

]]> By: Tom W. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318377 Tom W. Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:57:07 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-318377 Jeff - don't be silly here. This is one multi-billion corporate negotiating with another, simple as that. Has nothing to do with the kids, or new media, or any kind of revolution. It's about getting a good deal from Google. You'd do the same damned thing. Jeff – don’t be silly here. This is one multi-billion corporate negotiating with another, simple as that. Has nothing to do with the kids, or new media, or any kind of revolution. It’s about getting a good deal from Google. You’d do the same damned thing.

]]> By: Stickler http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317801 Stickler Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:58:18 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317801 To the Editor: It's Jon Stewart. To the Editor:

It’s Jon Stewart.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317484 Kevin Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:05:34 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317484 I like how theft is easily written off as "promotion". It is not promotion to take a show on a network you have to pay to watch and stream it on the internet for free. It is theft. Anyone who says differently is so full of crap they need to be flushed. I like how theft is easily written off as “promotion”. It is not promotion to take a show on a network you have to pay to watch and stream it on the internet for free. It is theft. Anyone who says differently is so full of crap they need to be flushed.

]]> By: Doug Lay http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317448 Doug Lay Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:21:03 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317448 To qualify my above rant a bit: Ken Leebow's post above does talk about a possible business model, and seems less vitriol-filled than some of the other posts from the content industries' point of view. I think he's over-optimistic about the networks' chances of building their own Internet distribution infrastructure though. I'll also point out that although the content folks are no doubt sincere in their belief that unauthorized use of their material is the same thing as theft, and some judges may agree with this view, the majority of the American public does not feel this way, and neither does the written law. To qualify my above rant a bit: Ken Leebow’s post above does talk about a possible business model, and seems less vitriol-filled than some of the other posts from the content industries’ point of view. I think he’s over-optimistic about the networks’ chances of building their own Internet distribution infrastructure though.

I’ll also point out that although the content folks are no doubt sincere in their belief that unauthorized use of their material is the same thing as theft, and some judges may agree with this view, the majority of the American public does not feel this way, and neither does the written law.

]]> By: Brian Cubbison http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317401 Brian Cubbison Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:30:16 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317401 There simply needs to be a way to advertise in a video that's distributed across many networks. Preroll is probably not the answer. Maybe it's the little bug in the corner. An advertiser who is seen by millions of viewers won't care whether it came over a broadcast tower, satellite dish or YouTube. Media producers should be working on a way to sell non-annoying advertising within the YouTube videos. There simply needs to be a way to advertise in a video that’s distributed across many networks. Preroll is probably not the answer. Maybe it’s the little bug in the corner. An advertiser who is seen by millions of viewers won’t care whether it came over a broadcast tower, satellite dish or YouTube. Media producers should be working on a way to sell non-annoying advertising within the YouTube videos.

]]> By: Doug Lay http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317331 Doug Lay Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:33:43 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317331 None of the folks hatin' on Google's business model is even remotely addressing the issue of what the right business model should be. Maybe all the hatin' will get a judge to shut YouTube down and send Google "crawling" away billions poorer. Will that make the content companies a dime richer in the long run? One thing that would result, as sure as night follows day, is the rise of more decentralized and hard-to-control channels for unauthorized file sharing. Just like Napter led to Kazaa led to the torrents. Jeff is trying to help the content industries, and some of you, apparently oblivious to the radically changed distribution landscape brought about by the Internet, are trying to shoot the messenger. None of the folks hatin’ on Google’s business model is even remotely addressing the issue of what the right business model should be. Maybe all the hatin’ will get a judge to shut YouTube down and send Google “crawling” away billions poorer. Will that make the content companies a dime richer in the long run? One thing that would result, as sure as night follows day, is the rise of more decentralized and hard-to-control channels for unauthorized file sharing. Just like Napter led to Kazaa led to the torrents.

Jeff is trying to help the content industries, and some of you, apparently oblivious to the radically changed distribution landscape brought about by the Internet, are trying to shoot the messenger.

]]> By: idonothingallday http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317304 idonothingallday Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:04:55 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317304 if you could get your fill of jon stewart on youtube why would you watch it on tv or on comedy central? if you could get your fill of jon stewart on youtube why would you watch it on tv or on comedy central?

]]> By: Jegster http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317302 Jegster Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:58:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317302 Doesn't anyone remember how MTV was responsible for the enormous success of artists like Duran, Duran, Twisted Sister, The Police, and even Michael Jackson? It can be credited with the resurgence of artists like Yes, Steve Windwood", and Genesis. It can also be given credit for launching a new generation of Deadheads, because of the success of The Grateful Dead's only chart topping single, A Touch of Grey, was due largely to it's successful video. How much did MTV pay for the videos that were responsible for it's success? Nothing! The promotion and excitement caused by the exciting, "new" video form built many an artist's career and filled the coffers of the record companies. And they didn't have to pay a dime for that promotion! One hand fed the other. Apparently, MTV (and it's parent, Viacom) have forgotten that. Doesn’t anyone remember how MTV was responsible for the enormous success of artists like Duran, Duran, Twisted Sister, The Police, and even Michael Jackson? It can be credited with the resurgence of artists like Yes, Steve Windwood”, and Genesis. It can also be given credit for launching a new generation of Deadheads, because of the success of The Grateful Dead’s only chart topping single, A Touch of Grey, was due largely to it’s successful video.

How much did MTV pay for the videos that were responsible for it’s success? Nothing! The promotion and excitement caused by the exciting, “new” video form built many an artist’s career and filled the coffers of the record companies. And they didn’t have to pay a dime for that promotion! One hand fed the other.

Apparently, MTV (and it’s parent, Viacom) have forgotten that.

]]> By: CaptiousNut http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317057 CaptiousNut Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:05:02 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-317057 Viacom needs to embed advertising (think American Idol Coke bottles) and capitalize on the wider distribution channel. They are damned fools. All the Luddites decry YouTube - it's funny yet tragic. The game has changed. If you launch up fireworks in your backyard, how can you possibly stop your neighbors from enjoying them? Of course someone could take Jeff's blog or my blog for that matter, repackage it and sell it. We knew that on day one. Jeff has leveraged his blog into consulting gigs for himself; mine is for personal amusement. Jim Colbert as "intellectual property"? Now THAT is funny. Viacom needs to embed advertising (think American Idol Coke bottles) and capitalize on the wider distribution channel. They are damned fools.

All the Luddites decry YouTube – it’s funny yet tragic. The game has changed. If you launch up fireworks in your backyard, how can you possibly stop your neighbors from enjoying them?

Of course someone could take Jeff’s blog or my blog for that matter, repackage it and sell it. We knew that on day one. Jeff has leveraged his blog into consulting gigs for himself; mine is for personal amusement.

Jim Colbert as “intellectual property”?

Now THAT is funny.

]]> By: Plotkin http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316897 Plotkin Sat, 03 Feb 2007 09:35:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316897 A new video sharing service that is technologically going even beyond YouTube was launched in Jan 2007. Its name is MYUBO. Apart from the Web, it can also be accessed from mobile phones (upload & watch) and works on all mobile data networks - including GPRS, EDGE, or CDMA and 3G/UMTS. http://www.myubo.com http://myubo.mobi Even though MYUBO is still in beta phase it has already captured the attention of Internet and mobile phone users. A new video sharing service that is technologically going even beyond YouTube was launched in Jan 2007. Its name is MYUBO. Apart from the Web, it can also be accessed from mobile phones (upload & watch) and works on all mobile data networks – including GPRS, EDGE, or CDMA and 3G/UMTS.

http://www.myubo.com
http://myubo.mobi

Even though MYUBO is still in beta phase it has already captured the attention of Internet and mobile phone users.

]]> By: Alex c http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316752 Alex c Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:26:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316752 So if i get your argument correctly. Promotion means free content. so if a movie in fact improves sales of a book - harry potter - then i should be able to make a movie on harry potter without paying anything. That's awesome - damn fools. Google takes your content, removes the ads so it's an "engaging user experience" does not share a dime with you whn you have a large online audience of your own and make hundreds of millions there... and you should say thank you for the promo. Are you that obvious...damned fool So if i get your argument correctly. Promotion means free content. so if a movie in fact improves sales of a book – harry potter – then i should be able to make a movie on harry potter without paying anything. That’s awesome – damn fools.

Google takes your content, removes the ads so it’s an “engaging user experience” does not share a dime with you whn you have a large online audience of your own and make hundreds of millions there… and you should say thank you for the promo.

Are you that obvious…damned fool

]]> By: Jeff http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316492 Jeff Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:52:08 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316492 Tell you what. I'll just take all your content here and set it up on a mirror site with better display and more engaging visuals and community input. Plus, I'll weed through all that boring Davos crap to get the parts people really want. You won't mind, will you? You'll get more exposure on my site than you would on yours. I'm calling it YouScrewed. Theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up with fancy new media garnish. Tell you what. I’ll just take all your content here and set it up on a mirror site with better display and more engaging visuals and community input. Plus, I’ll weed through all that boring Davos crap to get the parts people really want.

You won’t mind, will you? You’ll get more exposure on my site than you would on yours.

I’m calling it YouScrewed.

Theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up with fancy new media garnish.

]]> By: Jett Loe http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316191 Jett Loe Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:54:38 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/02/02/viacom-cuts-off-nose-to-spite-face/#comment-316191 I wonder how the agreements Viacom has made with other networks/broadcasters fit into this. I live in the UK where the Daily Show is available on Channel 4's 'More 4' - since it has been so easy to watch the Daily Show/other favourite shows on YouTube/broadband I find myself never turning on the TV. Would Channel 4 have a case for some sort of breech of contract if Viacom did not demand the clips be taken off? I wonder how the agreements Viacom has made with other networks/broadcasters fit into this.

I live in the UK where the Daily Show is available on Channel 4’s ‘More 4′ – since it has been so easy to watch the Daily Show/other favourite shows on YouTube/broadband I find myself never turning on the TV. Would Channel 4 have a case for some sort of breech of contract if Viacom did not demand the clips be taken off?

]]>