The other day I was on the phone with one of the ShoeMoney System students who is about to launch his own fitness training product. He was putting together some promotional videos and wanted my feedback on them. The videos he made I thought were really good except for the background music.
A quick long note about sales/info videos:
When you are making a sales or informational video about your product you are really telling a story about it. You are trying to communicate all the major benefits of your product and why someone should buy it. This can be done through verbal narration or text on the screen. But, TV and movies have made our attention span to video very very short… and we need visuals and audio that help move the story a long. For instance you should never see the same angle in any video for more than 10 seconds.
Pay attention the next time you see an informercial at 2am.
Watch how much the camera angle changes. Watch how the music changes. These things help keep the viewers attention and keep them through the whole story. And that is an important piece. How important… I can tell you that 90% (NINETY PERCENT) of the people who finish my 11 minute sales video on the ShoeMoney System buy. And those numbers are not a fluke. So obviously my goal is getting more people to finish the video and I do that with changing camera angles/screenshots/pictures and music.
BTW – Maybe if people are interested you can get David to post about how to get analytics from your videos on his tech talk tuesday column. It’s pretty sweet stuff!
But back to our original story. So as I am looking at my students video’s about his physical training product I think he has done a really great job with everything BUT the background music. He was pretty aware of this too and asked if I had any suggestions. Immediately this one thing popped for me. I told him he should find something very similar to what cage fighting legend Wanderlei Silva walks out to the ring to. It starts off slow then gets super upbeat.
Now most of you are just like him and are probably thinking who the hell is Wanderlei Silva and how could I possibly find this music. A quick google search for “Wanderlei Silva entrance music” gave us a YouTube Video of EXACTLY what I was talking about:
=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-wCXgS_dYE
What an incredible resource YouTube is.
Google provides an amazing service that gives you free hosting in HD quality of all your videos AND allows you to monetize them through AdSense. And how much do we take it for granted?
I use YouTube more as a multi media encyclopedia.
- Whenever I want to find a famous speech I search YouTube.
- Whenever I want to find a clip from my favorite movies I search YouTube.
- Whenever I want to find a song (music video) I search YouTube.
If a picture is worth a thousand words then a video is worth a million.
YouTube is an unbelievably valuable resource to me… especially with the ShoeMoney System. It’s 1 thing to walk one of our students through something over the phone… another to send them screenshots of what I am talking about. But its on a totally different level to take a screen capture with me talking and 1 click upload that to YouTube.
YouTube is about to change as we know it.
3 years ago (March 12th, 2007) Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube which centers on Viacom’s claim that Google’s YouTube video-sharing site allowed users to upload more than 100,000 video clips from Viacom-owned networks and movie studios, including BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, and Paramount Pictures. Viacom’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks $1 billion in damages.
The case is still going very strong and I am finding it pretty fascinating.
A couple days ago it was admitted into evidence that Viacom actually sent employees to Kinkos and other locations to upload its own content to YouTube. Or in other words while Viacom’s lawyers were issuing takedown notices, their marketers were putting clips up on YouTube to promote Viacom movies and TV shows. Crazy huh?
Also many documents were released that had internal conversations between YouTube’s founders Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim to which they not only talk about all the copy written but how they intentionally took a very long time in removing the content.
If you feel really froggy you can download all of the released court documents here.
So what does all this mean?
Eventually a decision is going to be handed down on this case and it could come as early as this summer. No matter whose side the judge ends up on its going to be a landmark case and going to be cited endlessly in copyright cases forever. It’s going to change YouTube forever.
On one hand the judge could rule that even though the founders of YouTube knowingly violated copyright law they can not be held responsible.
On the other they could decide they are guilty of copyright infringement (which I think is a more likely outcome), will award hundreds of millions if not the full 1 billion Viacom is seeking in damages. This will be the beginning of the end I am afraid for YouTube and services like it as EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER will now come out of the wood work with a lawsuit for content uploaded to YouTube.
I remember 10 years ago a service I used to take for granted… it was called Napster and it was amazing. I just hope 10 years from now we are not talking about this great service we used to use called YouTube.
About the author...
Jeremy Schoemaker – who has written 2415 posts on ShoeMoney.com.
Hi I am Jeremy Schoemaker and ShoeMoney.com is my blog. 99% of the post here are done by me but you will see others occasionally make guest posts. This blog is fun to write but for my day job I run several online companies.
Images provided by ShutterStock
PPV Advertising 101 – Untap the Potential (Part 1 of 3) 
How To Profit From Invading Your Users Privacy 
Getting Press for Your Website, Application, or Service 
{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }
Good post jeremy. I think the case with youtube could go either way. When it comes down to it both parties are at fault. Also both really gained from their own situation. Youtube made money by having their content out and viacom profited by having the exposure it did by having things up on youtube.
Good point you have given. When we promoting our product or service especially on You Tube, we always provide how the customer getting benefit from our products instead of describing about product.
God, Napster, them’s were the days.
I remember a ringtone site that used to have loads of copyright material on it uploaded by users, what happened to that?!
Lazy management who got sucked into affiliate marketing and the quick easy cash that came with that. Huge mistake one of my biggest regrets actually.
The verdict will be exciting …but Youtube is here to stay
I agree, this won’t kill YouTube, even if there could be some damage in terms of stricter posting guidelines. YouTube is a product whose time has come. I think its growth in the past few years alone stands as testament to the function that this media giant is performing for the society. Granted, there’s a lot of useless stuff out there, but when you think about it, YouTube has greatly improved the way we advertise, keep in touch with friends, share experiences, and generally pass on information.
I don’t think YouTube is going anywhere. Viacom may or may not win, but I don’t think they’ll get all of their damages, and I don’t think that what the original founders did will have much impact on the YouTube of Today, owned by Google.
Interesting post.
If you think back, YouTube kind of got it’s initial user base and boost because they had pirated tv shows and movies on it pretty heavily in 2005 and early 2006. They didn’t fight it hardly at all for that first year. They owe a lot to pirates. All Viacom has to do is look at the RIAA and MPAA, their fight will be never-ending and useless if they go down this path.
I don’t think it’ll go anywhere for a long time. I’ve been seeing younger people going straight to YouTube to search instead of Google. They’d rather watch a video about something instead of reading about it.
The song is “Sandstorm” by Darude. That takes me back a ways. It was released in 1999 and is just as good today as it was then. Love that track.
As for the future of YouTube, Google has enough cash that, even if they lose, they will bail it out. YouTube just has too much brand recognition right now to bail on it. Plus it is easily embeddable and works on the iPhone (unlike some other video sharing platforms).
Good point you have given.
If anyone is interested, the track in the video is called ‘Sandstorm’ by Darude.
Viacom needs to realize that people will just upload the videos somewhere else. I see it happen all the time. Some use other services & some provide a direct download link to said videos on their sites.
Finde auch, das Youtube und andere Sites dieser Art in der heutigen Zeit sehr wichtig sind. Zwar werden diese Plattformen auch gerne missbraucht. Aber das ist leider kaum zu verhindern. So lange es Spinner auf dieser Welt gibt so kann sich das auch nicht ändern.
Ich denke, es ist ein Witz, dass sie tatsächlich glauben, sie können etwas tun. Ich schätze, wenn sie werfen aus Rechtsstreitigkeiten hier & dort dann eine Chance zu starten.
I don’t think YouTube is going anywhere. Google has enough cash that they can buy Viacom if they probably wanted.
It is kind of funny that their own people where uploading videos of their copy righted material onto the site.
Greg Ellison
I’m no lawyer, but I would think that Viacom would have to prove economic harm was done to them. It sounds like just the opposite. They also used the service as a promotional vehicle.
The the courts are funny (not really) animals and could go either way.
If YouTube is fundamentally changed, you can bet that some innovative entrepreneur, maybe you, maybe me, will find another exciting way to replace them.
More power to you,
Tom
Many people forget to use Youtube as a regular search engine. Answers with video footage to questions is powerful…. and to this day I still don’t get video clips or songs being pulled or live concert clips that in the end help promote and brand the bands.
I think YouTube will be held not liable… The only reason I think that is because of the fact that Viacom was sending their employees to upload content to YouTube while Viacom was issuing cease and desist orders…
What very likely may happen (based on that one fact alone) is that the case could get thrown out of court for being frivolous and Viacom would be held responsible for all of the court costs… Not to mention YouTube could counter sue for their attorney’s fees and damages.
If someone sues you and it’s ruled as frivolous you can counter sue them for damages.
I was big into to Napster too… If YouTube goes the same way that will put thousands of sites out out work… From the good sites to the bads that just scrape the videos…
But correct me if I’m wrong. The ruling would only effect all the U.S. based YouTube services. What about all the over sea’s sites like YouTube UK or knock off sites?
Are we on the verge on paying to watch someone fall down or do something stupid… Just to see it on PayTube… I know I wouldn’t pay to see that..lol
Thanks for the heads up Shoe…
Hi Jeremy,
Interesting post starting with a provocative title going into changing video angles, music and finally back to the controversy.
You Tube is going to remain, I think, because it works for everybody, including those who sue it.
It would be incredibly retarded to have it destroyed.
Vance
Shoot — now I can count on you for legal briefings and updates?
Nice!
You are definitely spot on about this being a landmark case that everyone and their son (and their son after that, and so on) will cite to.
I left my last 9-5 position as the right hand man to the managing partner at http://www.kmwlaw.com (no http:// cuz they don’t need the link as the site is in flash).
We took care of and handled a number of West Coast litigation for MTV Networks, Inc. and Viacom with an ever lingering lawsuit (and I see they no longer represent Viacom or MTV Networks):
M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, L.L.C., 217 F.R.D. 499, (C.D. Cal. 2003); M2 Software, Inc. v. Viacom, Inc., 119 F.Supp.2d
Taken from Managing Partner’s bio: Larry’s practice also includes class action defense, including the defense of Yahoo! Inc. in class actions filed across the United States. Larry also recently successfully defended MTV Networks in a reverse confusion trademark case involving issues of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Larry has an active appellate practice and has argued numerous cases before the Ninth Circuit. Larry, along with Anthony Keats, represented the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition as amicus curiae in a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit which established that flea market operators could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and contributory trademark infringement based on the sale by their vendors of counterfeit or infringing merchandise. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996).”
The old Overture/Yahoo/Google click fraud class action case was immensely fun times and the sheer volume of documents. And this was all while I was exposing the Yahoo spider hole back in the days of blog and ping (05/06).
I am certainly glad to have been out of there before Barbie ended up slaughtering our client, MGA Entertainment Rights to the Bratz Dolls. I was there during the beginning phases of our positioning the entire case for minimizing liability (which obviously didn’t happen)
Great advice on the story telling in the video. I wholeheartedly believe that direct response is totally driven off the same framework of infomercial.
I just used the whole infomercial example for the folks on my Live Call in Show http://www.nichebot.com/blog/615/the-live-show/ (not that particular episode as last week’s is still in production).
Anywho, funny thing is that I just yesterday had a chat with my bunch about getting video for video submissions (SEO purposes) and using CC licenses (which I’m sure you know about).
That’s one of the main reasons I have steered my bunch more toward another video platform that has partnered with CC and
the specific licenses people can apply to their work and which
makes them readily available to us (live show is hosted on it).
I even recommended NOT to get people’s voices or faces in the way if their confidence is not there for video. So I took my bunch through a way to create video without shooting an ounce of video
to overcome that hurdle.
I’ve gotta meet you one day just so we can sit down, chat and giggle.
Back to work — the inner CEO is crackin the whip on me.
Jim
That bit is funny, they themselves come to promote and sue on later.
Youtube has struck millions deal to broadcast IPL which is itself showing that it has long to go before it goes down.
Hi Jeremy,
I don’t think anything will happen to Youtube afterall not everything on youtube is copyrighted material.
I think YouTube will be here for a long time…..or at least the concept will be. I agree totally with you Jeremy….It is as important as Google when it comes to available information and any schmoe can take a video of himself and expose it to MILLIONS of people. I was just watching one where a young blonde was asking questions like “whats your idea of good sex?” The damn site had almost 70 MILLION views! Talk about traffic!
Great advice on keeping the eyes on your videos…No, I don’t think Youtube is going to go the way of the dodo..
If I was a cage fighter, I would come out to Michael Bolton’s “When a Man Loves a Woman”.
Youtube is a valuable resource for both entertainment and information. Although the service does help millions of people find out about new music or watch a movie segment, Viacom does have the right to take legal action to try and ensure that their content is not distributed illegally online without their consent.
While I agree with Viacom’s decision to take legal action, I disagree to a certain degree with whom they are taking the legal action against. Those who uploaded the content in the first place should be sued as well. Youtube should not be the only defendant in this case because they are just a service. They do have some responsibility in the matter because it is their website but the people who upload content that they know they don’t own should be fined a portion of those damages that Viacom is seeking in the case.
I like how you pointed out that Viacom had people uploading their content while submitting take down notices at the same time, so they are, in a way, contradicting their argument against Youtube.
Why upload the same content if it’s already on Youtube?
Instead of suing Youtube, it would be better if Viacom just tried to partner with them somehow so that they would at least have some control over their content being uploaded to Youtube.
Youtube does have its flaws and faults but that old saying “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” should be what Viacom is practicing instead of suing an online video website that probably helps to promote Viacom (which also leads to sales for Viacom and it’s networks) even if it is with their own content.
Still, Viacom has more of an advantage, I think, because it’s their content and they own it, not Youtube, so at the end of the day, Viacom will have the last word.
It would be a shame for Youtube to fail, even if the court rules in Viacom’s favor. Youtube could be restructured OR at the very least, begin enforcing more restrictions on what can and cannot be uploaded to their website. Youtube can still rule the online markets with original content. Many of their popular video creators do not rip off other people’s stuff (such as Viacom), but instead, create their own content so Youtube could benefit from their popularity if it had to restructure itself to only display and allow original uploads and video uploads that do not infringe on the copyright of any entity.
First of all, these behemoths are so huge that any side getting an adverse ruling will get held up in the Court of Appeals far longer than any shut down occurring.
Case in point is the seminal case where Barbie (Mattel, Inc.) sued The Bratz Dolls (MGA Entertainment, Inc.) and recently as last year there was an order for MGA to stop selling the dolls,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a.ZaD149jqSk&refer=us
But apparently not. I still walk into Toys R Us and the dolls are still there and selling the stuff.
Why?
Because the appellate court overturned that ruling on a Writ of Mandate that was most likely granted on Ex Parte relief (relief sought within 24-48 hours and is usually based on emergency causes).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8405451.stm
This was even after the biggest FLUB that CEO Isaac Larian could have ever made when:
“The jury found that ex-Barbie designer Carter Bryant came up with the Bratz idea and made most of the original sketches for it while he was still at Mattel. It awarded Mattel $100 million in damages, 5 percent of the $2 billion the toymaker sought. ”
That’s pretty minimized damages considering — but back to the issue at hand.
Ruling or not — it won’t become any sort of precedent until final decision of the Appellate court and I can tell you based on the amount involved that no settlement by the parties will be had.
Appeals court can and has taken years, especially if the appellate court decision is taken to the Supreme Court or Federal District Court base on the level.
I’ve personally overseen cases that were held up for 3 years and
the backlog in Los Angeles County Courts is just probably worse
than their traffic (and this goes back to 2005).
That there could be another 2-3 years until that matter is actually argued and guess what? Youtube is still working in 2015, no problemo.
And did you see recently that Isaac Larian (CEO of MGA) is now trying to gather some muster to take his into a public offering with that lingering over his head. That’s a bold move with Mattel having the order and a big fight still ahead of them:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-11/bratz-doll-maker-mga-entertainment-will-consider-ipo-ceo-says.html
This is definitely a provoking subject that sparks discussion, but in the end, it’s a pissing match where top firms get to bill a couple hundred thousand dollars in fees by taking sweeping depositions across the country and fighting to the death with their voluminous appellate briefs.
And even still, an appellate decision can still be overturned later on in the Appeals decision process when they file multiple volumes of blood curdling mind-numbing legal conversation that would put the rest of us to sleep.
I’m so jaded in my 18 years in the legal field that to me, a ruling doesn’t mean anything until the time for the other party’s ability to appeal has lapsed and the judgment is made final.
Having worked for and overheard discussion with in-house counsel at MTV and Viacom, they guard IP rights and copyright stuff to the highest degree of seriousness.
So I would project that they would ultimately take it to the State or U.S. Supreme Court Level to make sure the judgment stick. And knowing Google, this would be “to the death”
shut up dude you are making my finger sore by trying to scroll down past all your long azzz greek posts.
Yes, I do believe this will be ground breaking. I hope it doesn’t kill youtube, because it’s actually a very cool platform. Where else can you go looking for the Killer Whale and 2 hours later end up watching Prisoners doing the Thriller dance? The ads are the only thing that bugs me. I hate having to x out the ads just to watch a clip. Bummer!
Isn’t there enough greed in the world with out Viacom trying to destroy a site everyone enjoys.
It’s really not about greed. Well, it is, but if we’re going to talk about greed then both Viacom and YouTube are greedy. After all, the YouTube founders knew perfectly well that the videos being uploaded into the site are copyrighted. And they didn’t delete them because it would generate more views, which also means more money. Both companies here are at fault, actually.
I love this story – especially Viacom’s dual role is using YouTube AND sueing them … it’s like dirty cops pimping out hookers and then arresting the Johns after they got their money.
Don’t want to get into the Youtube debate but great point on alternating camera angles every 10 seconds and the use of music with the videos. thanks for the tip, just watched a cool video from Kazushi Sakuraba and you can learn a lot from these types of videos. cheers
Hai jeremy. I often read your articles, search on google sometimes, lead to this blog. I really like what you write. my little comment for this article.
I often use Youtube, Youtube is a very amazing tool to search for movie reviews, music, video magic, or anything to dig up my inspiration. and I hope “The Death Of YouTube” is not actually happening.
Do you plan to keep this site updated? I sure hope so… its great!
Not sure if Youtube is going anywhere. I think with mobile devices it’s only getting stronger. It’s basically one of the first and best video on demand services around! I think if Youtube implemented something like iTunes Store or Netflix they’d make a killing.
YT isn’t the only site that allowed/allows copyrighted content uploads. Megavideo has full movies and shows uploaded.
I think Youtube will win this one but even if they don’t, I don’t think it will be the end of an era. There are many other video sites and it is easy to start one. I uploaded 5 videos today and none of them on youtube. Youtube is just one branch of the video market and a lot of other sites are expanding rapidly.
A site owner especially one the size of youtube can’t keep track of every upload, what about other sites that users post content? Should they be held liable? Wordpress, Blogger, Myspace, Facebook?
Jeesh, corporate greed is NASTY. Its sickening that stuff like this happens, and yes..at the end of the day it will be the little guy using Youtube and these services the way it was designed that will suffer.
Copyright claims and all this nonsense is getting WAY out of hand, especially for us small business and home based business owners who use youtube on a daily basis.
No matter what happens, the little guy loses.
Not necessarily so. There is no reason for the non-professional or semi-professional users to suffer, but professional artists who rely on the integrity of their intellectual property do. You see, content does not exist for the “little guy” to exploit. While YouTube is a haven for new artsits seeking to beak into the business by because it allows them to reach the most number of potential fans at the lowest possible cost (think of Jay Brannan, Sam Tsui, and other YouTube celebrities), it also serves as a threat for established artists seeking to make their living selling the fruits of their creative efforts. If you can easily get an entire album off the web, or see it on the internet for free, then the
industry is in trouble.
I hear you, American Dream. As a writer, I know how important IP laws are and how they’re essential to the survival of people like me who rely on their intangible assets to make a living. What some YouTube users are doing is very similar to what would happen if I were to write a book and every Tom, Dick, and Harry were welcome to come by and could snag a copy for free.
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post.
Darude “Sandstorm”, that brings back memeories. I was attending school parties these days. I might have been 14 or something.
.
And Napster was the best thing out there these days, for my unfortune we didn’t have the broadband and i had download with my 56K modem
And for Youtube, i really hope that your predictions are wrong. Loosing Youtube is like loosing one of the best Encyclopedias of the world.
B.
Great to see the video of Wanderlei. I think I told you the story. One day me and Jenny were at Couture’s gym and Wanderlei was training with Tompkins. Me and Jenny were sitting on the mat in a corner watching. Shawn and Wanderlei started sharing blows, and great friends that they are, neither was blocking, and both were just going head to head, literally throwing about two punches a second. They just kept going like this for minutes, which seemed like hours. They slowly were drifting toward us. Jenny and I got up, and were cornered by them with no where to go, and they were hitting so hard you could feel every blow.
We both thought we were going to end up in the way and get hit, and were just giggling, literally about 2 feet from the heaviest punching I have ever seen in my life. Truly a once in a lifetime experience.
Both of them looked as happy as could be, just getting slammed by each other, boom, boom, boom, boom. Wanderlei just loves to fight and it shows.
Just a great fun guy.
Dark and light. Night and day.
If the dark night on the street, you suddenly turn on the lights, then you can find many interesting pictures (events) which are hidden from the eyes of people in the dark.
In a large organization or society is often one hand does not know what the other hand are doing. And vice versa. The rights of one who has more rights.
When you have a lot of money and time, then you can spend on litigation. The result is not guaranteed. But time and money you spend.
Often, the best is to change yourself (or your business) than to try to change the system of things.
The truth is that youtube doesn’t need to go anywhere. In the future world all will be streamed through internet and they are and they will be the first ones to grab the biggest slice of that market.
YouTube is only one site. There are others out there that have copyrighted content, Veoh, Megavideo, DailyMotion, etc. So after this lawsuit, does it mean video streaming sites will be extinct?
Nah, I don’t think so. As long as there are people seeking to circumvent the system, there will always be peer-to-peer and sharing sites. What the bigwigs have to do is to understand that this is not a phenomenon that is going to go away. They have to figure a way to work with it, or around it. But to go against it – yeah, right, that’ll work. Just as soon as I fill this bottomless pit with spoonfuls of sugar.
True. Agree with you 100%. Media companies definitely need to cooperate with social media sites like YouTube.
I don’t think the issue is about online video at all. It’s solely about copyright infringement law. Many people will assume that the fall of Youtube will be the fall of online video, but new inventions will be created: ones that have purely original and personal stories, with no illegal content. FB is the model, and youtube has provided the platform. Put the two together (with some adjusted features) and the next giant will emerge.
Wow. This is a really interesting post. A few thoughts here.
First, I had no idea that Viacom employees were uploading info to YouTube. My goodness… that’s not going to help them out with their case.
Second, this post really made me consider YouTube’s contribution to how I live my life and entertain myself. It has become a part of my life. I get up, check my news online, check the weather online, and sure as sh!t – I will stop by YouTube for this or that. I guess I never thought about it. Huh.
Third, YouTube did get its start through uploading content that they did not necessarily own. No one ever cares about this sort of thing until someone starts making money. I once listened to a speaker (who shall not be named) that developed one of the world’s largest music trading sites. He described bootlegging CDs from his college dorm room in the 90′s. His shady start ultimately landed him an easy lifestyle, and he retired years ago in his late 20′s. Is it right? Who knows, but if you want to make $$$, “borrowing / sharing” content seems to be working for plenty of people, including our friends who started YouTube.
Very interesting posting – and you’re definitely right, Youtube has evolved into a multimedia enyclopedia; how long will Wikipedia hold up?
One word struck me though, especially since my logo is a frog – you wrote “if you’re feeling froggy, you can…” I’m not a native speaker, and I’ve never heard of this before; what does “froggy” mean? very curious!
Must download that Wanderlei video.
Gotta run!
Won’t it just mean the end of professional content on youtube and just lead to a shift where the videos are all homemade again. I feel like it might just leave more room for people who want to promote their videos, as demand stays static and supply decreases.
> “On the other they could decide they are guilty of copyright infringement (which I think is a more likely outcome), will award hundreds of millions if not the full 1 billion Viacom is seeking in damages.”
Keep in mind that YouTube wouldn’t be sued for having the videos on their site in the first place, but rather, not taking them down quickly after being sent a cease-and-desist letter from Viacom. Normally, YouTube would benefit from the “safe harbor” provision. In other words, they aren’t expected to verify that all the uploaded content is legal. Rather, if someone sends them a takedown-notice, they need to respond to that takedown within a reasonable amount of time. I don’t know how long it took YouTube to remove violating content, but if they were keeping stuff up for six months after a takedown-request, you can see why they might be at fault. Theoretically, YouTube might be dragging it’s feet on taking down that content because they know if builds traffic to their site. Hence, it would be a case there YouTube was getting financial gain at the expense of someone else’s content.
> “I remember 10 years ago a service I used to take for granted… it was called Napster and it was amazing. I just hope 10 years from now we are not talking about this great service we used to use called YouTube.”
Napster was just taking creators’ content and giving it away; they’re really not so different than a guy on a street-corner selling copies he made of other people’s movies and music. It’s a good thing they were shut down because it would set a horrible precedent if they weren’t. As an independent software developer, I earn a living by selling my software. If someone (like Napster) was going out and undermining my business by giving away my work for free, I’d be pretty miffed too. Places like YouTube and Napster are making money and not paying the people who created the content, which is not only wrong but it undermines the engine that produces the content. Consumers love it, of course, but that’s because things are a whole lot cheaper when you don’t have to pay people for their work.
I have to admit I’m a YouTube addict, and I def agree with you when you said we’ve been taking YT for granted. So even though I have read that really long post on the evidence against the YT founders, I’m still on YouTube’s side. I’m biased, what can I say?
And besides, if we’re going to talk about copyrighted content and all, we’re going to open another can of worms. If Viacom is suing YT for copyright, there are other sites that have to be sued as well. After all, YT is just posting clips of copyrighted content. Does Viacom know that there are video sites that post whole shows, and they could be downloaded?
In fact whenever I miss my favorite TV shows I don’t even go to YT. I search on Google and I get download links.
You’re totally right. With the ease of user sharing these days, it’s almost impossible to protect IP rights. Users can download entire seasons of a TV sitcom and store it in a portable hard drive, copying it into as many machines as they want. It’s not even what people go to YouTube for.
It would be a shame if Youtube is forced to shut down. I remember the early days of ifilm.com and it shutting down due to lack of funding. I believe it was the genesis of Youtube. Perhaps where one dies another comes alive.
Regarding the Viacom’s dubious practice of posting promotional content on a website that they happen to be suing: Why doesn’t YouTube simply refuse the content? I know they are supposedly user-driven, but really, why post content that will help promote the people who are out to destroy you?
Very interesting post! I don’t think YouTube is going anywhere!
I have already heard about Youtube’s financial problem… They use thousands of servers and the advertising revenue doesn’t cover these expenses! I think it was not a good investment for Google
I hope not. Although you tube does have a lot of junks video’s. They need to build a junk filter video system.
YouTube is the biggest Search Engine after Google, more searches performed on YouTube than on Yahoo. Backed up by Google I can’t see them go under but it is interesting too see what happens. Who thought that Google or any other could ever become more popular than Altavista 10 or 12 years ago?
I agree with Deborah. It would be such a loss if they have to shut down YouTube. I’m not one of those people who searches for TV show clips and movie clips on YouTube, but I do search recipe/cooking videos and how-to videos. And occasionally, I stumble upon talented aspiring musicians/singers in YouTube. So I hope they don’t close it down.
This YouTube vs. Viacom issue reminds me of something I read online. It’s not directly related but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Last year some South Korean officials were proposing to police online communities and forums. Apparently rude conduct online is such a big issue in South Korea. There have been multiple suicides caused by online bullying and “suicide petitions” started by random users.
Although the YouTube/Viacom issue is entirely different since it’s not about rude online behavior, it’s also about trying to control content online. It would be difficult to actually police the internet, and I’m pretty sure closing down YouTube would not solve any problems concerning copyrighted content. There are still lots of sites out there that might contain copyrighted content.
I would be surprised if you tube went away because of this litigation but not too surprised. Things are always changing on the internet so I guess anything can happen. I just don’t think YouTube and Napster are going to end up the same.
Gotta admit I enjoyed reading the comments. It seems a lot of people are siding with YouTube, and I understand why. Viacom wasn’t smart either, with their marketing staff uploading content to YouTube.
IMHO, this lawsuit won’t be the death of YouTube. But you’re right, Jeremy, when you said this case is going to change YouTube. Maybe in the future YouTube would require users to pay. With that, companies like Viacom could upload full shows, and paid users could watch them legally. But that would suck. If that happens I would completely stop using YouTube.
(Sigh.) I think most of the comments are siding with YouTube because Jeremy made the erroneous suggestion that YouTube could get shut down. Here’s the thing: YouTube is NOT going to get shut down. This is a red herring in the whole discussion, and YouTube is not like Napster. Please do not fall into the trap of siding with YouTube against Viacom because you think the only options are (A) YouTube gets shut down or (B) YouTube is allowed to show copyrighted content without paying the content creator. There’s actually not very much stuff on YouTube right now that violates copyright. I occasionally see it on there, but it’s almost always gone within a few days or a week. What will happen is this: YouTube will probably get slapped with a fine. YouTube will also charge for some premium content (they’ve already discussed this), but the majority of the content will be free. YouTube will probably also do the Hulu model where some content is available with advertisements. Also keep in mind that YouTube is already going that way with their “Vevo” service for music videos (which displays ads before the video starts). The Vevo service shows that YouTube already has the industry behind them.
http://www.youtube.com/user/VEVO
Interesting points. Thanks for clarifying that. I think most of us are just thinking of the worst case scenario, which is life without YouTube. And that’s improbable. I think even Viacom would not consider shutting down YouTube.
A life without YouTube? Perish the thought! However, it is interesting to note that people will consider YouTube as essential, but it was non-existent just a few years ago.
Well, if you recall, cellular phones and teeny-tiny laptops were not around a few years back either, and look at how essential they’ve become to modern life.
Thank you for clearing that up, Brit. I kinda panicked for a moment there. YouTube gone? Can you imagine?
Thanks for clearing that up, Brit.
If YouTube dies, I would be one of the many people around the world who will scream, NOOOOOOOOOO!
To answer the question, is the death of YouTube coming? No, I don’t think so.
YouTube is an important part of social media. Currently there are four sites that I can’t live without, and these are Google (Gmail included), Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. And it’s probably the same with other people.
If YouTube loses the lawsuit, it would also be Viacom’s loss. Many people turn to YouTube to watch clips and teasers of films and shows produced by Viacom’s companies. So people become interested in these shows and movies because of YouTube’s advertising. Viacom would be lying if they say that they don’t need YouTube or any other video site that contains copyrighted content.
I think the legislators are going about this all wrong. How come we can’t go after individual users, instead of butting heads with the providers? YouTube, as many have mentioned, including Jeremy himself, serves a very important function for society – it’s invaluable as a launching pad for independent talent, and as a source of information as well as entertainment. The focus should be on educating the public on what is against the law and punishing offenders.
That’s right, ILoveMemes, because we all know how successful that was against the music pirates.
Great post shoe. I think people are already taking youtube for granted. It really is an incredible resource for much more then entertainment.
I have received some incredible information about some of my competitors in certain niche markets that you wouldn’t believe.
Thank you Youtube I love you
OMG….. The comments here are just as interesting as the post! Here’s to freedom of expression (with the approval of the moderator, of course.)
Long live YouTube!
I’m going straight over to YouTube now to upload a gazillion new videos … and to every other video site, too … just in case
Did you just register shoetube dot com ??
its taken dang!
There will never be another Napster. YouTube is the closest we’ve seen since they were shut down. I hope YouTube wins, but I’m sure there will be changes. Thanks
I’m also siding with YouTube, but we have to admit: If Viacom wasn’t a huge company, if it wasn’t a very popular media company and it only owned the rights of a few shows, would we side with YouTube?
Aside from YouTube being an essential part of social media nowadays, I think the reason why we’re willing to overlook YouTube’s mistakes is that it’s up against Viacom. Viacom owns MTV, CBS, CW, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Vh1, Paramount, etc. Compared to YouTube, Viacom is a giant. In my opinion we kind of see Viacom as the Big Bad Wolf, and YouTube is the distressed hero or something.
I agree and disagree. I wouldn’t say YouTube is automatically the hero in this lawsuit, just because it’s the “smaller” company. But I agree with some of the points you made. And the fact that Viacom’s people uploaded videos on YouTube didn’t help.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Google and YouTube richer than Viacom? I’m not sure though.
Anyway if they are richer, then YouTube is not exactly a distressed hero.
One cannot expect of youtube to filter out every copyright content. I hope youtube will win this law suit.
If YouTube goes the Napster way, I am blaming you :/
The iPad needs Youtube – what else will these people do on the Internet ? They won’t read.
Apple needs Youtube.
“YouTube” is a fantastic video resource!, it’s getting better every day with tons of official channels as well as some great production companies.
I think it will always be safe. :]
The thing that bothers me most about these cases is that lawyers automatically equate every view as lost revenue. Just because someone watches a music video, for example, doesn’t mean they haven’t purchased the CD, or that they would purchase it if the video wasn’t available.
A billion dollar lawsuit is ridiculous, but they do it in hopes of getting a settlement for $100 million which is still a ridiculous payday.
Napster was a beautiful thing. Granted 90% of my songs were ones that I already owned. The other 10% were singles from way back that I just happened to run across. Memories from my past that I would never be willing to buy a CD to get that one song.
Everything’s always better before the lawyers and corporates show up.
This would be an internet-wide tragedy if it happened to Youtube – think of every single video site out there as well, which would go under the cutting block. I think that the fair use doctrine should be updated for the way the web has evolved.
Great post Shoe Money!
It’s going to be hard for Viacomm to say that they did not receive economic benefits from their own employees uploading the videos.
Right now it’s a game of chicken but I suspect that V and Goog will settle out of court and prevent a ruling from actually occurring.
Thought provoking post. I certainly hope that YouTube stays around for a very long time.
Good post jeremy. But I can’t conclude it now. Is it possible to cross check each and every videos posted in youtube about the possible audio/video released in the world so far…? almost impossible, right?
Google should just buy them and propmote Viacoms PR man, seems Viacom are getting good publicity from all this.
You Tube will be always safe as its going to become more powerful since Google bought it
Hi guy, was just browsing through the www looking for some information and go across this page. Iam impressed by the information that you’ve on this page. Shows how good ya understand your subject. I’ve bookmarked ya, and will come back for more infos. You, my friend, ROCK!!!
Happy to see this, I am happy to find this good Web
jeremy the post which you have shared with us is great.Now i am uploading that viseo from Youtube.And i will bookmark it so that my friends can also have look of that.
Thank You for Sharing such kind of Information.