18 Comments Add your own

• 1. The Tony  |  March 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am

  Wow. I’m kinda’ turned-on after reading that.

  Jeff Jarvis, you sexy, truth-spilling wordsmith!

• 2. Safran  |  March 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am

  Is this the same Viacom whose CBS is taking down the clips and replacing them with the same clips? No wonder they’re spending a fortune on lawyers. They have lawyers finding clips, making YouTube take down clips, putting up new clips and then suing YouTube for having users post the clips in the first place.

  Viacom doesn’t even know what it’s angry about.

  You can’t talk corporate boneheads out of being corporate boneheads. All I ask is that Viacom pick a single terrible strategy and go with it. It’s getting too confusing to write about this.

• 3. thedetroitchannel  |  March 13th, 2007 at 10:44 am

  thetony:

  last i read LR had a strict “don’t ask don’t tell policy”.

• 4. saundra  |  March 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am

  Granted you have to consider the source, but an article on Marketwatch makes Google exec’s look like the boneheads.. not Viacom:
  A sampling:
  “Since the purchase of YouTube, Google’s stock has tumbled 15%. … a growing number of analysts have begun to wonder whether Google is any closer to implementing a strategy for making money from its YouTube investment….
  “Investor optimism regarding YouTube was misplaced,” said Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry. “Google is failing to do anything with YouTube.”

• 5. Jason  |  March 13th, 2007 at 11:16 am

  Viacom and CBS are managed separately now, Steve. CBS is its own corporation with its own strategy (CBS network, radio, O&O stations). Viacom is the cable properties: Com Central, MTV, Nick.

  Does this Viacom lawsuit also cover CBS?

• 6. Safran  |  March 13th, 2007 at 11:27 am

  Good Lord, Jason. You’re absolutely right. See how confused I am?

  No - this doesn’t cover CBS at all. My brain got stuck in 2005 for a moment.

  Attention LR Readers: Ignore comment #2 and possibly many other things I write.

• 7. David Johnson  |  March 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

  huh, what… did you say something, saf?

  /sarcasm
  //comments are farktastic
  ///slashy

• 8. baker  |  March 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pm

  as i blurted at buzzmachine…

  [...] If, in its negotiation with YouTube, Viacom manages to crack that nut - getting revenue plus promotion plus branding plus content while helping the audience do what it wants to do - then that would be wise, indeed. [...]

  Agreed, but technically speaking, cracking that magic nut would require Google to recognize a user-submitted Viacom clip as a Viacom clip and tag it with appropriate advertising. That sounds a lot like filtering. In which case, use that filtering technology to weed out copyrighted content in the first place. Problem is, filtering is imperfect and infinitely hackable.

  [...] Rather than cutting off new distributors and promoters, I say that producers should be finding the ways to take full advantage of the opportunities they present. [...]

  This is all but impossible unless the new distributors or promoters enable the business opportunity. Otherwise, any such distributor or promoter can simply hide behind “Limitations on liability relating to material online,” right? Because it’s not their fault that a hit film or television show can be encoded for the web and posted on their site. Is this what you call going with the flow; submitting to the fact that media will always be hacked, made free, and when one of these sites reaches a critical mass and is bought out by one of the richest companies in the world, it’s incumbent upon the producer to figure out the business model for every instance and permutation of their copyrighted content? Wow.

  The fact that YouTube has “not yet” [...] profited handsomely from the presence of the infringing work [...] is no excuse, in my opinion. Just because my friend hasn’t noticed that I stole his Battlestar Galactica Season 1 box set doesn’t mean that it’s not stolen. Hey, it’s not my fault that he made his DVDs so accessible, and just because I watched his DVDs doesn’t mean that I should help him pay for the box set. Besides, he can just watch those episodes on YouTube. It’ll be just like having his DVDs back.

• 9. discreet_chaos  |  March 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

  I’m sure Mr Jarvis probably has some well-reasoned arguments for why the same things which worked against Napster wouldn’t apply to YouTube.

  I mean, something besides the fact that he personally doesn’t like it, he apparently wouldn’t mind if someone mirrors his site and if you follow his link; His kid, who doesn’t watch television found a clip of a television show, while keyword-searching YouTube. (And, how that benefited Viacom, I have no idea. At least if they had been hosting the clip, they could’ve gotten the ad revenue from his son’s viewing. Instead, now his son knows about a show on Comedy Central… oooo… that’s buzzworthy. Unprofitable, but buzzworthy. I’m sure the stockholders would be pleased)

• 10. The Tony  |  March 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  I dunno’…I never like to stick up for people who are benefitting/making money when I’m not.

  Viva la cheapskate!

  Legal wrangling makes me die a little.

• 11. discreet_chaos  |  March 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

  If I may elaborate a bit on my last point;

  My wife’s grandmother used to loudly find the remote, whenever “Friends” would start and if she was watching something else and an ad were to run, she’d tell whomever was listening; How much she couldn’t stand those “crazy, jumping around guys”. Obviously, she was aware of the “Friends” because they’d always spur a reaction, but Time-Warner derived no revenue from her awareness, whatsoever.

  And, I can think of no way they were served by having an 80-something woman being able to recognize the program from a glimpse at the title sequence, much as I don’t think Comedy Central was served because Mr Jarvis’ television-deprived son watched a non-monetized clip of Jon Stewart on YouTube.

  As I said before, both situations may be buzzworthy, but neither of them would pay the light bill or offer the stockholders a return on their investment.

• 12. Dave  |  March 13th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

  It may not be profitable but that doesn’t mean the future 18 - 49 & 25 - 54 demographic (IE: the current ab/users) will want to go back to the old way. Legal or not , like it or not, youtube has changed the way people find and watch TV.

  When napster finally shut down, there was no legal download service (like iTunes) to fill the void. So the piracy continued (on Scour, WinMX, Kazaa, etc) until the music industry’s business model changed. TV is now going through the same thing.

  Sure it’s not profitable now and there’s no guarantee it will be profitable, but I can guarantee you one thing, you take away the copyrighted content on youtube, it will just migrate somewhere else until something changes.

  Jarvis annoys me though… I will say that.

• 13. baker  |  March 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

  >> it will just migrate somewhere else until something changes.

  agreed, of course. and if you keep extrapolating the “it’s just going to be free somwhere else,” concept to forthcoming devices and delivery options, it starts to feel like it will become impossible to make a dime off of content, because technology can keep liberating it from the shackles of a business model, like a virus that removes ownership.

  sounds like “going with the flow” is going to be a real bitch.

• 14. Thom Stockmann  |  March 13th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

  Let’s talk about what is really keeping Viacom from monetizing its content — its lack of respect for the Web as a medium and the users as an audience. Just look at the MTV site (which may be seeing an increase in video but video automatically starts on every visit and autoplays in the background).

  Besides the obvious lack of audience research and usability concerns, there is a self-indulgent nature to that site. I’m all for trying to innovate. But you have to innovate from a place of understanding and respect for the user’s experience. (Think Apple).

  Okay, so if you can’t innovate, then copy. (Think Microsoft). But a year after YouTube became a sensation, Viacom still doesn’t understand what’s good about the YouTube experience and why people prefer to go there.

  This isn’t just an MTV problem. We’re seeing lots of big media companies trip up on these Web issues as they try to make the Web a copy of Tv with video ghetto players — innertube, vspot, motherload, pipeline.

  These companies should look at their internal structure and the abilities of their staff. Then hire some good consultants (Think Adaptive Path) and listen to them. TV executives need to be willling to admit that this is different industry that requires a different set of creative skills, new thinking and more attention to the user experience.

  I’ve sat in meetings with TV audience researchers who believe the key to success for Web video is the audience changing to think of the Web as a “lean back” experience.

  Viacom needs a unified Web strategy that includes cooperation of the brands, finding talented new media managers who hire experienced Web 2.0 User Experience Designers and Product Developers (then enable them to work quickly and innovate).

  I know it sounds simple.This lawsuits might disrupt YouTube, but in the long run companies like Viacom will have to present a better product or people will just go to the next YouTube.

• 15. aimes2  |  March 14th, 2007 at 6:00 am

  My friend Thom said above: “Let’s talk about what is really keeping Viacom from monetizing its content — its lack of respect for the Web as a medium and the users as an audience.”

  I agree. They have no understanding of the user experience online. Try as they might, there is no way Corporate Suits are ever going to make the internet a passive cookie-cutter experience, which is what they want because it would be easiest for them — no hard thinking involved in adopting a new business model or lowering shareholder expectations.

  Well, they will never change my expectations for what I want out of my online experience. It’s like sorry dudes, but this genie is not going back in the bottle.

  No one knows what VIACOM is and no one cares. People care about Jon Stewart or Laguna Beach. They want to make their own “editorial” decisions about what clips to share. The very idea of Viacom even thinking they know what parts, be it 10 seconds or 2 minutes, of their shows people want to mashup or share is completely arogant and goes against the zietgiest of what is happening right now in the online video space and social networking.

  You can’t fight technology, you can only adapt.

  Like hypotethically, how the hell does Viacom know what part of My Super Sweet 16 I think is funny and want to upload to my MySpace?

  Media companies: Stop telling me what to do — what to watch, when to watch, it’s over. Bittorent is my DVR and YouTube is way more fun than watching your broadcast TV.

• 16. aimes2  |  March 14th, 2007 at 6:06 am

  … Actually, in fairness to Viacom, South Park is the greatest thing ever. Credit where credit is due…

  …I can’t wait to download it tonight.

• 17. David Martin  |  March 14th, 2007 at 8:58 am

  Legacy producers are sending things to lawyerland to 1) put on the record matters concerning their rights and ownership 2) create incentives for settlement by dialing up risk and exposure 3) send a message to the market and to their shareholders that they are “doing something” 4) buy time to consider options and alternatives. Not saying I agree with the approach. The only sure thing is 2007 will be a great year for ip lawyers.

• 18. Jason  |  March 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

  When media companies stop making money, they stop producing content, and you have nothing to upload and share. There’s got to be a middle ground between the “I’ll do whatever I want with your video” crowd and the “Let’s sue anyone who posts my video” companies.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed