Poll: Viacom and how Youtube users are being used.

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Meh. There have been plenty of plans to sue people who post Youtube videos on their blogs and shit, or to somehow make money off of people who embed Youtube videos on their private web pages. Every time something like that gets out, people are up in arms about it.

If I should be allowed to embed a Youtube video on my webpage (or on this board, or anywhere else), I don't see why Viacom shouldn't be allowed to do exactly the same.

Feels too much like a "zOMG evil corporations are exploiting the little guy!" knee-jerk reaction to me.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

Meh. There have been plenty of plans to sue people who post Youtube videos on their blogs and shit, or to somehow make money off of people who embed Youtube videos on their private web pages. Every time something like that gets out, people are up in arms about it.

If I should be allowed to embed a Youtube video on my webpage (or on this board, or anywhere else), I don't see why Viacom shouldn't be allowed to do exactly the same.

Feels too much like a "zOMG evil corporations are exploiting the little guy!" knee-jerk reaction to me.

The difference is you don't do it for commercial purposes. Viacom use can be considered as commercial use, as spike relies on videos to attract viewers and on advertising to make money (like Youtube). Although if the number of videos ripped from youtube is very small, I hardly can see a commercial use (but sadly I am not the law), and can't be bothered to check all videos as they are millions. The videos showed have very little number of views on spike (viacom's) compared to Youtube, around 1/500 to 1/1000.

I know it sounds illogical and you have a point but at the eyes of copyright laws things can be interpreted in a different way. By a similar example. You bought a band album and you take it to your class to present an essay on one of the musics or even the art of the cover. Although its a form of public sharing its not commercial and therefore its perfectly acceptable. But now think you run an event, where people have to pay to go, or where you have sponsors, even a charity one and you play that album songs. In that case its not an acceptable form of public sharing (thou the chances someone will sue you are very little and it's quiet logic the old argument that they should be grateful for the free advertising as if 2 people go out and buy it they made money).

 

[iLikeHippos]

Easiest way to battle this is to make all videos embedded in the Youtube player needing a direct live link from a youtube file stashed in their main servers.
If it breaks, the film will fail and not upload nor play.

Or they could use the same system Ubisoft used with their DRM.

At thus, you would only be able to watch those videos on youtube.