Options

Youtube gets sued.

2»

Posts

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    JJ wrote: »
    Joost is the dark side.

    It's evil.

    Youtube is like Luke Skywalker.

    Joost is also a really stupid name.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Joost will fail, and Viacom will blame Youtube.

    This is in spite of the fact that nobody even knows what the fuck a "Joost" is, and probably never will.

    Marty81 on
  • Options
    RageRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Marty81 wrote: »
    Joost will fail, and Viacom will blame Youtube.

    This is in spite of the fact that nobody even knows what the fuck a "Joost" is, and probably never will.


    I read it as "juiced".

    Slang-like misspellings = 22.4% more Hip & Edgy....or something.

    Maybe

    Rage on
  • Options
    KelorKelor Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    doctorevil.jpg

    One Billion Dollars!

    Kelor on
  • Options
    TaximesTaximes Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    "Boss, other companies are beginning to accept YouTube and use it to their advantage! What will we do?"
    "Don't worry. We'll create our own version of YouTube! Only it will be shitty, and people will hate it!"

    Taximes on
  • Options
    jackaljackal Fuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse. Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    A company should have the right to choose what video site their clips are on even if the video site they choose sucks.

    This isn't like they are suing end users. Google can defend itself just fine.

    jackal on
  • Options
    rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    YouTube has become a part of culture. It's mentioned in television shows and featured in commercials. You could walk down the street and ask people if they know what YouTube is and they would say yes.

    You ask them what Joost is and they would ask if it was some sort of porn slang.

    rayofash on
  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    jackal wrote: »
    A company should have the right to choose what video site their clips are on even if the video site they choose sucks.

    This isn't like they are suing end users. Google can defend itself just fine.


    but really, Viacom shouldn't be suing Google. current law pretty much precludes the possibility of a suit here, as Google and YouTube can clearly demonstrate they are not encouraging infringement and are staying within the guidelines of the DMCA.

    i also have to disagree a bit with your video clip comment. the law might not be 100% with me on this part, but i really believe YouTube represents a new kind of social gathering place. even before YouTube, we were already sharing small pics and video clips of our favorite movies and shows with friends, creating both "viral buzz" and new fan communities. it's a part of what the Internet can and really should be. i'm not so sure about sharing complete shows and movies like what has been happening on YouTube, but the other things that go there, like homemade movies, favorite clips from shows or movies (a standup comedy segment or a great fight scene, for example) are great things to share. socially its quite amazing.

    fightinfilipino on
    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • Options
    ArugulaZArugulaZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Taximes wrote: »
    "Boss, other companies are beginning to accept YouTube and use it to their advantage! What will we do?"
    "Don't worry. We'll create our own version of YouTube! Only it will be shitty, and people will hate it!"

    With decisions like this, Star Trek Bore-ager, and the firing of Ren and Stimpy's John Kricfalusi, it's a wonder Viacom has been in business for nearly forty years.

    ArugulaZ on
    JR

    Same old site, great new look! Check out The Gameroom Blitz at:
    http://www.lakupo.com/grblitz
  • Options
    TreelootTreeloot Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Sanders wrote: »
    Found this nifty quote over at fark.com
    IT probably dosn't have anything to do with the fact that Viacom has invested in a company called Joost, which is about to launch in the next few months.

    And guess what Joost is ?

    P2P Television.

    Joost doesn't have anything on Youtube yet. I got into the Joost beta a few weeks ago, and I'm unimpressed. Here's what Youtube has over Joost:

    Easier system requirements - Joost requires 512 MB of RAM to run. 512 MB of RAM to run a video player is outrageous. I don't really know how much RAM the average person has, but I think quite a few people might get shut out because of this.

    It's viewable in your browser - Another key problem with Joost is that it's only available through a separate application. Having to download something seperate before you can watch a video could easily take away some of the appeal.

    The interface isn't complete shit - Joost is a headache to navigate through.

    Joost does have some potential, if they can get some good shows from better channels. The National Geographic channel on Joost has some cool shows, but I don't really care about the things like world's strongest man channel. They need more channels with more appealing shows. I would watch TV online with ads, but it's usually not available.

    Treeloot on
  • Options
    slurpeepoopslurpeepoop Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Viacom claims that about 160,000 unauthorized clips of its programmes have been loaded onto YouTube's site and viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

    The lawsuit seeks more than $1bn in damages and an injunction to prevent future copyright infringement.

    Wow, that's $.67 per viewing. Pay-per-view could learn a thing or two from Viacom on pricing their property.

    Going by hosting infractions, that's $6,250 per violation, which is still a shitload cheaper than the RIAA's model of suing for $150,000 per song.

    If you ask me, Viacom is lowballing themselves. Besides, once you start suing for trillions (like the RIAA has done), that's when you get the official Mad Villian Club card.

    C'mon Viacom, don't sell yourself short like a three dollar hooker! Take pride in yourself and go for that gold ring!

    slurpeepoop on
  • Options
    jackaljackal Fuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse. Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Treeloot wrote: »
    Sanders wrote: »
    Found this nifty quote over at fark.com
    IT probably dosn't have anything to do with the fact that Viacom has invested in a company called Joost, which is about to launch in the next few months.

    And guess what Joost is ?

    P2P Television.

    Joost doesn't have anything on Youtube yet. I got into the Joost beta a few weeks ago, and I'm unimpressed. Here's what Youtube has over Joost:

    Easier system requirements - Joost requires 512 MB of RAM to run. 512 MB of RAM to run a video player is outrageous. I don't really know how much RAM the average person has, but I think quite a few people might get shut out because of this.

    It's viewable in your browser - Another key problem with Joost is that it's only available through a separate application. Having to download something seperate before you can watch a video could easily take away some of the appeal.

    The interface isn't complete shit - Joost is a headache to navigate through.

    Joost does have some potential, if they can get some good shows from better channels. The National Geographic channel on Joost has some cool shows, but I don't really care about the things like world's strongest man channel. They need more channels with more appealing shows. I would watch TV online with ads, but it's usually not available.

    It is a separate application? Fuck. Well, that's that.

    You go from:
    "Hey check this clip out. clippy clippy clicky link."
    "ok"

    To:
    "Hey check out this video. You have to download this application to watch it."
    "Umm.... no."

    jackal on
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    Some companies expect Youtube to police all their content, for free. Youtube tells all of them to find offending videos and report them, and it'll get removed with no problem, but they're not going to be the deciders of what was actually infringing or not.

    Some companies think Youtube can magically screen out all their content, but the companies never

    * Provide Youtube with the library of their content to even generate fingerprints in the first case
    * Realize that people like to stick their site name onto their Youtube videos (yeah, that irks me for some reason when Youtube is the one hosting it), which will change the fingerprint.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    Non-Existent FreezerNon-Existent Freezer Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    This is a lot like the RIAA going after totally random people and charging them bajillions of dollars for what is generally a minute offense.

    Kind of sucks that Viacom's stuff is down and they own nearly everything. I generally buy DVD sets and things based on what I've seen on Youtube. This Joost thing sounds like the software alone would absolutely spank my computer, so even if it worked well and had good show, I'm not sure that I want to bother with the hassle of having a special program for it.

    Non-Existent Freezer on
    g2kc7.png
  • Options
    ViscountalphaViscountalpha The pen is mightier than the sword http://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Viacom wants more money than Google is offering from it's ads.

    The whole lawsuit thing is just how companies 'talk' these days.

    unfortunately, Thats how things are done these days. I'm not sure 'talk' is the best word though. It seems more like

    "The whole lawsuit thing is just how companies cock punch these days"

    This is a lot like the RIAA going after totally random people and charging them bajillions of dollars for what is generally a minute offense.

    Kind of sucks that Viacom's stuff is down and they own nearly everything. I generally buy DVD sets and things based on what I've seen on Youtube. This Joost thing sounds like the software alone would absolutely spank my computer, so even if it worked well and had good show, I'm not sure that I want to bother with the hassle of having a special program for it.


    So true. They just need to disallow highquality product on youtube. People will buy this stuff if they want to keep watching it in a decent image quality and those that don't care never planned to buy this stuff in the first place. I swear theres so much stupidity in the IP market its not funny. Intellectual properties have always been squabbled over.

    I have no faith in big business intellegence in america.

    Viscountalpha on
  • Options
    existexist Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Joost is a stupid name.

    exist on
    UmPiq.png
  • Options
    MeizMeiz Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Google should take anything that has Viacom or Viacom related IPs out of its search engine.

    Meiz on
  • Options
    ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Meiz wrote: »
    Google should take anything that has Viacom or Viacom related IPs out of its search engine.

    This is a terrible and also evil idea. It would chase people away from Google's search engine (because it wouldn't return any results they want) and leverage their power in one area to hurt their competitors in another, which is generally frowned upon.

    I like this take on the whole series of events though:
    [Viacom, when they helped draft the DMCA] expected to use the power of their corporate takedown-letter-writing department to shut down anything they didn't like. They didn't count on a service provider with the capacity to not only host enough content to give their takedown-letter department writer's cramp, but to actually be able to handle all those takedown letters without shutting down.

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • Options
    ArugulaZArugulaZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Oh man, that would be a riot! It would be like they vanished off the face of the Internet. Then again, that would make them no better than Viacom, which filters out any content that would put the company and its fearsome leader Summ-Ra the Everliving in a negative light. That's the great thing about the Internet... EVERYONE gets a say, not just decrepit plutocrats seemingly culled from an episode of The Simpsons.

    ArugulaZ on
    JR

    Same old site, great new look! Check out The Gameroom Blitz at:
    http://www.lakupo.com/grblitz
  • Options
    MeizMeiz Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Someone loan me a couple of billion so I can buy google.

    Meiz on
  • Options
    DigDug2000DigDug2000 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    jackal wrote: »
    It is a separate application? Fuck. Well, that's that.

    You go from:
    "Hey check this clip out. clippy clippy clicky link."
    "ok"

    To:
    "Hey check out this video. You have to download this application to watch it."
    "Umm.... no."
    I don't think Joost was ever trying to compete with YouTube. Their technology is P2P and allows for better resolutions. From what I've heard, it sounds more like Shoutcast, except P2P. Its not out to get yourmoney. Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox. None of them have ever cared about taking your monies. Its out to make it easier to share video without requiring someone to divy up a shitload of bandwidth. They've been trying forever to get content because... well without content its just another app you'd have to download.

    DigDug2000 on
  • Options
    jackaljackal Fuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse. Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    jackal wrote: »
    It is a separate application? Fuck. Well, that's that.

    You go from:
    "Hey check this clip out. clippy clippy clicky link."
    "ok"

    To:
    "Hey check out this video. You have to download this application to watch it."
    "Umm.... no."
    I don't think Joost was ever trying to compete with YouTube. Their technology is P2P and allows for better resolutions. From what I've heard, it sounds more like Shoutcast, except P2P. Its not out to get yourmoney. Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox. None of them have ever cared about taking your monies. Its out to make it easier to share video without requiring someone to divy up a shitload of bandwidth. They've been trying forever to get content because... well without content its just another app you'd have to download.

    I stand corrected. So, umm... porn?

    jackal on
  • Options
    RageRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    An article worth reading about the potential awesome Joost contains, and where it came from (as mentioned, the same minds that created Skype and Kazaa are developing P2PTV a la Joost)

    Another Wired article worth reading about the downfalls and failures of Yahoo compared to the meteoric rise of Google (and subsequent buying of YouTube *after* Yahoo passsed on the deal)...

    ...and speaking of articles to read, here's one about the multi-year deal between Yahoo and Viacom back in 2005, touted as 'the answer to Google'...

    Yahoo & Viacom. Google & YouTube. Viacom & Joost.

    And now...lawsuit.


    mmhm...do the math.

    Rage on
  • Options
    ArugulaZArugulaZ Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    ArugulaZ on
    JR

    Same old site, great new look! Check out The Gameroom Blitz at:
    http://www.lakupo.com/grblitz
  • Options
    SophismataSophismata Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    noweat wrote: »
    if you can sue people cause your website lets people check out in a couple of clicks.

    I must have missed this - may I ask what happened?

    Sophismata on
  • Options
    victor_c26victor_c26 Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Marty81 wrote: »
    Joost will fail, and Viacom will blame Youtube.

    This is in spite of the fact that nobody even knows what the fuck a "Joost" is, and probably never will.

    Treeloot wrote: »
    Sanders wrote: »
    Found this nifty quote over at fark.com
    IT probably dosn't have anything to do with the fact that Viacom has invested in a company called Joost, which is about to launch in the next few months.

    And guess what Joost is ?

    P2P Television.

    Joost doesn't have anything on Youtube yet. I got into the Joost beta a few weeks ago, and I'm unimpressed. Here's what Youtube has over Joost:

    Easier system requirements - Joost requires 512 MB of RAM to run. 512 MB of RAM to run a video player is outrageous. I don't really know how much RAM the average person has, but I think quite a few people might get shut out because of this.

    It's viewable in your browser - Another key problem with Joost is that it's only available through a separate application. Having to download something seperate before you can watch a video could easily take away some of the appeal.

    The interface isn't complete shit - Joost is a headache to navigate through.

    Joost does have some potential, if they can get some good shows from better channels. The National Geographic channel on Joost has some cool shows, but I don't really care about the things like world's strongest man channel. They need more channels with more appealing shows. I would watch TV online with ads, but it's usually not available.

    I think Joost is a pretty cool concept, and I hope it succeeds.

    If stuff like the Daily Show and other good shows get added to the service, it can turn into an alternative to YouTube.

    Remember, YouTube is user created video content, Joost is professionally/licensed video content.

    victor_c26 on
    It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox.

    Um. None of these programs are made by the same group of people. Unless you mean they hired Bram Cohen and others away from their current projects.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    victor_c26victor_c26 Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox.

    Um. None of these programs are made by the same group of people. Unless you mean they hired Bram Cohen and others away from their current projects.

    Actually, the same people created Skype. They also created KaZaa.

    victor_c26 on
    It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox.

    Um. None of these programs are made by the same group of people. Unless you mean they hired Bram Cohen and others away from their current projects.

    Actually, the same people created Skype. They also created KaZaa.

    Yes, but these people that created Skype and KaZaa did not create BitTorrent and Firefox, as those were done by different groups of people (Bram Cohen and the Mozilla Foundation, respectively). And while Cohen has done some freelance work for Valve and others in the past, he didn't do anything for Joost. (Nor did the Mozilla Foundation, obviously: they don't do closed source software). Which is why I was wondering where the hell DigDug got that idea from.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    victor_c26victor_c26 Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    Hell, its made by the people who made Skype, Bittorent, and Firefox.

    Um. None of these programs are made by the same group of people. Unless you mean they hired Bram Cohen and others away from their current projects.

    Actually, the same people created Skype. They also created KaZaa.

    Yes, but these people that created Skype and KaZaa did not create BitTorrent and Firefox, as those were done by different groups of people (Bram Cohen and the Mozilla Foundation, respectively)

    Oh yeah. I was just talking about Skype; it seemed you included Skype in the group in your last post.

    victor_c26 on
    It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
  • Options
    Recoil42Recoil42 Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Yeah, this is just the Skype/KaZaA people, not Bram Cohen or anyone who made any particularly important code contributions to Firefox people...

    Though it should be pointed out that it IS very much based on Bittorrent.

    Sophismata wrote: »
    noweat wrote: »
    if you can sue people cause your website lets people check out in a couple of clicks.

    I must have missed this - may I ask what happened?



    I think he's referring to the infamous Amazon one-click patent.


    Background:
    http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/amazon.html
    http://www.oreilly.com/news/patent_archive.html
    In the fall of 1997, Amazon.com submitted a patent application entitled "A Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network." On September 28, 1999, two years and one week after the application was filed, Amazon was granted United States Patent Number 5,960,411.

    Basically, Amazon owns a patent to one-click purchasing on the internet. Which, of course, is a completely horseshit in every single way possible.

    Recoil42 on
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2007
    ArugulaZ wrote: »
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    You get 3 guesses as to who owns Nickelodeon.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    ZackSchillingZackSchilling Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    ArugulaZ wrote: »
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    You get 3 guesses as to who owns Nickelodeon.

    Oh, oh, I know!

    ZackSchilling on
    ghost-robot.jpg
  • Options
    Dee KaeDee Kae Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    ArugulaZ wrote: »
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    You get 3 guesses as to who owns Nickelodeon.

    Oh, oh, I know!
    Is that copyrighted material?

    Dee Kae on
  • Options
    StormyWatersStormyWaters Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    ArugulaZ wrote: »
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    You get 3 guesses as to who owns Nickelodeon.

    Oh, oh, I know!
    Is that copyrighted material?

    Yes.

    Also, patents!=copyrights.

    StormyWaters on
  • Options
    victor_c26victor_c26 Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ArugulaZ wrote: »
    I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but on Nickelodeon, they've got a new show called "MeTV," which shows Internet-style clips of Nick viewers. MeTV... does that sound familiar to anyone? And don't be a smart-ass and remove the "e" from the name either.

    If you live in Chicago, it's OTA channel 23.

    METV is a local channel which shows legacy programs like I Love Lucy, Hawaii Five-O, etc.

    victor_c26 on
    It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
  • Options
    SophismataSophismata Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Recoil42 wrote: »
    Yeah, this is just the Skype/KaZaA people, not Bram Cohen or anyone who made any particularly important code contributions to Firefox people...

    Though it should be pointed out that it IS very much based on Bittorrent.

    Sophismata wrote: »
    noweat wrote: »
    if you can sue people cause your website lets people check out in a couple of clicks.

    I must have missed this - may I ask what happened?



    I think he's referring to the infamous Amazon one-click patent.


    Background:
    http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/amazon.html
    http://www.oreilly.com/news/patent_archive.html
    In the fall of 1997, Amazon.com submitted a patent application entitled "A Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network." On September 28, 1999, two years and one week after the application was filed, Amazon was granted United States Patent Number 5,960,411.

    Basically, Amazon owns a patent to one-click purchasing on the internet. Which, of course, is a completely horseshit in every single way possible.

    Champ! Thanks a bunch for the info. That whole situation really seems to be a mess.

    Sophismata on
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    This suit is ridiculous, considering that it's almost impossible to find any clips of, say, The Colbert Report on Youtube anymore. Youtube have removed hundreds of thousands of clips Viacom requested to be removed. I don't see how they could've co-operated any more.

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    Spectral SwallowSpectral Swallow Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Amazon owning the 'one click' checkout is all kinds of bullshit.

    As for viacom suing youtube, gotta say, they're idiots. On more than one occasion, I've youtubed a tv show to see if I'd like it, before going out and buying the season dvd(Though TV shows have kinda gone down on youtube).
    Though I do think the amount is kinda funny. At first I thought the original poster was joking.

    Spectral Swallow on
  • Options
    ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    This is stupid.

    The free internet will win, no matter how much giant companies sue the ass off all of the fathers of said free internet. If youtube falls, another giant will take its place.

    Shurakai on
Sign In or Register to comment.