Fox, YouTube & 24

[Shayne]

The basics of this are that a YouTube user posted copywrited clips of 24 on YouTube, Fox has now subpoenaed YouTube for the information of the user who posted the clips.

Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2007-01-25T030115Z_01_N24182870_RTRUKOC_0_US-YOUTUBE.xml&WTmodLoc=InternetNewsHome_C1_[Feed]-2&rpc=92

What do you guys think?

This is the reason why I thought Google buying YouTube had to be one of the largest brainfart acquisitions in a long time.  YouTube wasn't popular because of the home movies, it was popular because of all the illegal material on it.

[Lazybones]

YouTubes video quality is so poor I find it hard to believe it is popular for illegal movie content alone.

I use it mostly to watch stupid funny stuff like the "Will it blend" viral ads or that "OK Go" video with the treadmills (not sure if that one was posted with permission though)..

[Shayne]

Nor do I really, music videos sometimes but even then without permission they are also being posted illegally, but how often do you think an artist would really complain?

[Thorin]

As much as I hate to say it, Fox is right in attempting to stop the spread of entire episodes before they've been aired (and that's what happened here according to the linked article).  They pay to get the show made, then make money selling advertising space during the show.  It's nice to read that they had to convince a judge to allow them to subpoena YouTube rather than just demand that YouTube provide the information, and that part of what convinced the judge was that they had shown they could not determine the user's identity on their own.

As far as YouTube allowing us to watch copyrighted videos without permission, well, *any* website can do that, even my webspace on shaw.ca.  All they have to do is post it in AVI format as a link.  YouTube just happens to be optimized for video viewing.

[Shayne]

YouTube just happens to be optimized for video viewing.

How is it that Napster bit the dust by storing a list of where the material is and yet YouTube thrives and is sold for $2B by actually storing and distributing the material?  Bring back the old Napster!

[Darren Dirt]

YouTubes video quality is so poor I find it hard to believe it is popular for illegal movie content alone.

I use it mostly to watch stupid funny stuff like the "Will it blend" viral ads or that "OK Go" video with the treadmills (not sure if that one was posted with permission though)..

"OK:Go" actually wanted their video out on the 'net, not sure if it was intentional or maybe an "ok with it after the fact" situation. :-\

As much as I hate to say it, Fox is right in attempting to stop the spread of entire episodes before they've been aired (and that's what happened here according to the linked article).  They pay to get the show made, then make money selling advertising space during the show. 

re. the probably-a-24-fan YouTube user's short-sighted actions:

Lemme speak from personal experience here.

I have watched about 25 Aqua Teen episodes on YouTube (poor quality, sometimes chopped at the end) and due to my brain's pleasure centres being infected by its edgy, quirky, immature yet complex humour -- if it weren't for HMV being sold out (they had them for $19.99! dammit!) -- I woulda bought a couple of season DVDs, perhaps the whole set. Prolly will when they get stock.


And I would have watched "Jericho" or "Heroes" live on TV if I knew about it when the eps were first aired (and if I had cable at the time). Instead I first heard positive things about them through word of mouth, and by complete luck -- well after the episodes had aired on "commercial" television -- I found all 11 eps of Jericho on Youtube (in 4 parts each, 10 mins long) and was given a collection of AVIs of Heroes put onto a DVD so I could get co-hooked Now I gladly have watched/will watch them live on TV.


IMHO, my personal examples are the way this new technological ability should be used. It encourages "new fans", it makes it cheap or free for Giants and Indies alike to promote their creative products.


I would like to slap any idiot that doesn't consider the time and effort required to produce a work of art, whose malicious distro actions thus discourage those artists from producing further works, or WORSE make it so "law-makers" try to "clamp down" on the evil "criminal element" using resources like YouTube, Google Video, or BitTorrent. Idiots.

[Thorin]

I think one of the problems of distributing TV shows online is that the makers of said shows make their money from advertising and resale on DVD.  Once they find a way to make money even when it's distributed electronically, then we'll see these kinds of legal actions stop.

So what possible scheme could be invented that ensures the producers of a work of art are fairly compensated for their efforts?  Besides licensing agreements like what happens currently.

[Shayne]

Darren

Full episodes don't need to be put online to encourage people to buy them, thats just sounds insane to me.  That argument has been used over and over again for people to buy music and movies as well, but I tell you what, personally if I download a perfect rip of an album their is no way I will buy it.  I'm glad that you got what you had already seen for free.

I could see showing the first episode or two on the site that actually airs the show.  CBS, or NBC or whatever, at that point they can control how its seen and for how long.  They OWN the content, not YouTube or the people posting it on the net.

Thorin

Independent studios that are paid for their content straight up, not relying on a third party for income like advertising, etc.  Once NBC buys the shows from this studio NBC can then do as they wish.

[Darren Dirt]

Darren

Full episodes don't need to be put online to encourage people to buy them, thats just sounds insane to me.  That argument has been used over and over again for people to buy music and movies as well, but I tell you what, personally if I download a perfect rip of an album their is no way I will buy it.  I'm glad that you got what you had already seen for free.

I could see showing the first episode or two on the site that actually airs the show.  CBS, or NBC or whatever, at that point they can control how its seen and for how long.  They OWN the content, not YouTube or the people posting it on the net.

Sorry, wasn't clear there -- I didn't apply my example/logic to Film and Music, in those cases you can "rent" (Rogers, Library, Amazon 30 second clip, iFilm First 8 Minutes Preview, etc.*) without compensating the producers and decide if you want to buy a "permanent" copy for your personal collection.

But with TV shows, usually they are broadcast, for free, to anyone whose clicker happens to land on the right channel. Recording with the VCR or PVR and rewatching it later isn't any different than watching someone else's VCR'ed or PVR'ed copy -- after the fact, like I said -- and in all 3 cases (TV, and film and music) most of us who are not working minimum wage do end up purchasing more than they used to, pre-Internet daze.

Or am I the only honest one here? (I own 0 pirated music, and the only "non-legal" movie I had was "Equilibrium" for about 3 months, which now I own a legit copy of. I figure better to "vote with my $", i.e. spend my money encouraging the studios to produce what I like to buy.)



- - -

*etc. -- you said "I could see showing the first episode or two on the site that actually airs the show.  CBS, or NBC or whatever, at that point they can control how its seen and for how long." and that's part of the problem -- looks like CBS and NBC and Showtime/HBO prevent non-American surfers from accessing the after-the-original-broadcast episodes. (In fact, I was shocked to be able to actually view clips of Conan or SNL on the NBC website, and especially the complete "Office" webisode shorts.)

So what do Canadians and Britons do to watch the shows that they have missed? Wait 9 months for the over-priced DVD, or 20 months for the DVD to go on sale to a reasonable price? And in the meantime, avoid IMDB forums to prevent spoilerage? Or watch a lower quality version "elsewhere", and if the meme is still haunting them weeks or months later, then HMV or Future Schlock makes some more coin off of them. [/optimism mode]

[Shayne]

You make the argument that watching the show on YouTube, Torrent or whatever is no different the watching the show on the scheduled date for free and again I gotta disagree with this, the difference is that the versions on YouTube are commercial free (normally, i cannot make the argument for everything as I have not seen everything), by watching sans commercials you are avoiding how the networks pay for the production of these shows.

While NBC, CBS and such do not broadcast their free stuff to Canada that is a shame, but does that make it right to go about downloading in an illegal fashion?  You say "Or am I the only honest one here?", obviously your views of honesty and that of reality differ as you feel more then righteous in your current system of viewing.

Hey, I'm no better, I got my RSS feeder downloading me torrents all the time, its nice to wake up and have The Daily Show ready to go, this allows me to go about my schedule and not be tied down to the networks.  All I'm saying is that its absolutely wrong to have copywritten material posted by people without the approval of the owner.

As for your question "So what do Canadians and Britons do to watch the shows that they have missed? Wait 9 months for the over-priced DVD, or 20 months for the DVD to go on sale to a reasonable price? And in the meantime, avoid IMDB forums to prevent spoilerage? Or watch a lower quality version "elsewhere", and if the meme is still haunting them weeks or months later, then HMV or Future Schlock makes some more coin off of them." the answer is yes.  Or you can rent them for a fraction of the price of buying them (re: zip.ca) (you'd still have to wait a few months though)

Oh, missed one "and in all 3 cases (TV, and film and music) most of us who are not working minimum wage do end up purchasing more than they used to, pre-Internet daze(sp)." I for one purchase far far less.  I have 400+ CDs that I own purchased in a rather speedy time (2 years) while in High School (8 years ago) before the whole MP3 craze.  So personally, I purchase FAR FAR FAR less games, tv and music.  To a magnitude of I would wager 20x less.

[Thorin]

Shayne, I think we generally agree on this issue.

Thorin

Independent studios that are paid for their content straight up, not relying on a third party for income like advertising, etc.  Once NBC buys the shows from this studio NBC can then do as they wish.

I think one of the problems of distributing TV shows online is that the makers of said shows make their money from advertising and resale on DVD.  Once they find a way to make money even when it's distributed electronically, then we'll see these kinds of legal actions stop.

But how does NBC make money when the shows are distributed electronically?  That's the question that needs to be answered.  Until it is, there will continue to be legal actions as the companies (such as NBC) that make their money from advertising try to protect their source of income.  I don't know a good answer that doesn't involve legal action, though.

[Shayne]

I think the problem isnt the studios, but the cable companies.  What if they change how TV is distributed.  Instead of packages like we get now, do it individually.  Say for $2/m per channel.  Shaw keeps $1.  I dunno, but i'm sure something can be thought up, Apple keeps saying how good their system of selling TV shows works, so obviously a market exists for people willing to pay $2 a show, thats too much for me though.

Actors could also be a problem, when the actors of friends were demanding and making $1m/episode its no wonder our 30 minute tv shows are 20 minutes with 10 of it being targeted advertising.