Chappelle Show Creator Gives Grieving MCA Fans A Treat, Viacom Gives Them The Finger

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Wed, May 9th 2012 7:29am — Mike Masnick

In Viacom's continuing efforts to make itself look pretty clueless and unsympathetic, it has decided to issue a takedown over a previously unseen clip of the Beastie Boys performing on The Chappelle Show, which was uploaded to YouTube by Chappelle Show co-creator, Neal Brennan. The episode it was filmed for never aired as it was supposed to be in Season 3 of the show, which famously (and tragically) never happened because Dave Chappelle decided to walk away from the show.

It's clear that Brennan uploaded the video as a tribute to Adam Yauch/MCA following his death. And that seems like a great gesture -- the kind of thing that Viacom might celebrate. As both of the links above note, the show was never aired, so this clip was just "gathering dust." There has been some talk that Viacom wanted to put together new shows using existing clips -- so I'm guessing that's part of the thinking that went into this (perhaps I'm being generous in assuming any thinking went into this at all).

Either way, it's actions like these that make people distrust and dislike big companies like Viacom even more. Here was an easy way to do something good. Viacom could have (and probably should have) celebrated this tribute, even to the point of directly calling attention to Brenna's YouTube upload. Instead, it went legal, and comes out looking like an unsympathetic bully.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: adam yauch, chappelle show, dave chappelle, mca, neal brennan
Companies: viacom

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikuo (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:34am

Proof that the major entertainment companies do not care about art, progress or even money. They just care about control. Even in a situation where they stood to gain, they instead opted for control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yogi, 9 May 2012 @ 7:44am
  
  Re:
  That is indeed the crux of the matter. These companies cannot fathom a world in which they do not control who watches what, how, and how much. Freedom, and hence the internet, is anathema to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    As I've pointed out over and over and over again, the MPAA, the RIAA, the MAFIAA, the copyright cartel, Hollywood, the record companies, whatever you want to call them and however you want to aggregate them, are the mortal enemies of the Internet. It didn't have to be this way: they could have chosen to evolve and adapt. But they didn't. And now they must be ruthlessly exterminated like the vermin they've proven themselves to be, because the Internet can't be free as long as they survive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'd imagine that Hollywood's attempts to stifle the internet will ultimately be as successful as vaudeville's attempts to outlive the nascent cinema technology in the 1920's and 30's.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TDR, 9 May 2012 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Agreed. To paraphrase Morpheus:
      
      "As long as the MAFIAA exists, the human race will never be free."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  +1
  The MAFIAA can lick my dirty dog's butt for all I care.
  Hey RIAA,MPAA, and you others:
  You will never see a dime out of my wallet for the rest of my life.I will buy and support INDIE and refuse to go near your greedy controlling Industry.
  Two Big Fingers in the Air !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:42am

Hmm Viacom, perhaps I should stop watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. It's a shame, but I do not wish to see ad-dollars go to the parent company of Comedy Central.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  Just watch the 'ad free' versions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron, 9 May 2012 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  Just torrent it, then you get it ad-free and without supporting Viacom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 11 May 2012 @ 4:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I don't want to be put in the "pirate" column of their equation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:44am

I do not sniff the coke I only smoke the sensimilla.

See it here:
http://vimeo.com/41805627
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: Thank you
  Viacom, thank you for your attempts to protect us from the artists. Unfortunately the internet routes around damage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keii (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:47am

For the artists of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay Flatiron, 9 May 2012 @ 7:47am

http://youtu.be/gl7H8xr1dIc

Its up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 7:49am

"the kind of thing that Viacom might celebrate"

Corporations celebrate profits and nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 7:57am

Thank you Viacom, I have now seen the video you wanted no one to see.

Your efforts are duly noted and totally not appreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:02am

Uh, like you guys couldn't wait until well after 2100 CE to show this clip in remembering someone who just died? Come one, respect copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Why should we respect copyright? Respect is a two way street, and from what I can see, copyright and those who want to abuse it, deserve no respect.
  Give me one good reason why people in 2012 must adhere to broadcast schedules when determining what to watch. Go on. Make a good argument. I want to know what benefit I receive from being told to watch this show at 2100 CE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  I do respect copyright but I do NOT respect the abuse of copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    When a greedy corporation determines what constitutes copyright abuse...then you've got no neutral place to stand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That in itself is copyright abuse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vic, 9 May 2012 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  You should have put a /sarcasm tag. Not everybody gets it without one...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not everybody getting it is part of the fun!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and the /sarcasm tag is lame. People gotta learn to lighten up, maybe study dark humor to better understand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:05am

Once again, entertainment companies are trying to make sure they profit from someone's death. We saw it with Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and oh so many others.

Then they have the cheek to complain about the immorality of copyright infringers.

Hypocrisy, thy name is................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 9 May 2012 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re:
  Hypocrisy, thy name is................
  
  Chris Dodd?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:20am

What the artist wants, and what the monopolists want are two very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:31am

Comes out looking like...
"and comes out looking like an unsympathetic bully"

"and comes out looking like a bunch of fuckheads"

FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 8:59am

it is just a bummer that after this great creative mind's death, that there are 2 incidences of copyright control after him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 9:10am

Referring to companies in third person
I dis-like the tendency to refer to companies as sentient entities. I understand organizations can be seen as acting or behaving this way or that way, but in reality it is people who are taking action. Real flesh and blood human beings. Organizations do not feel or become influenced by emotions but people do. Instead of referring to the behavior of an organization we should be specific and direct about who (by NAME) in the organization is driving the actions and behaviors. This is the only way we will be able to socially influence an organization's behavior. Make someone accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: Referring to companies in third person
  in reality it is people who are taking action. Real flesh and blood human beings. Organizations do not feel or become influenced by emotions but people do.
  
  I disagree with this to a certain extent. I mean, yes, at the bottom of it is people. However, there is no single person, and there is no single point of responsibility.
  
  People in groups behave very, very differently than individuals do. At best, a corporation is people behaving as a group. It is no longer flesh-and-blood human beings in the sense we think about it, but a "social being" with a distinct personality, goals, and even emotions that often do no correspond with any individual that is a part of it.
  
  With corporations it's even worse, as there are specific legal constraints that the people who work in it must adhere to. Every day, people in corporations take actions that they personally disagree with because they are required to by these constraints.
  
  This is the only way we will be able to socially influence an organization's behavior.
  
  This is the part I disagree with the most. Socially shaming the members of a corporation is largely worthless. The corporation will continue as it does regardless of how embarrassed the people who work for it are. If the employees are embarrassed enough, they'll quit and be replaced by someone else who will act as the corporation requires.
  
  The only effective way to influence corporate behavior is by affecting the only thing any corporation truly cares about: their profit margin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: Referring to companies in third person
    Points taken.
    
    That there is no point of responsibility (or accountability) and they only means of influence is through the profits, are the two biggest "flaws" of a corporation. And they were written that way intentionally and specifically so that individual people could escape responsibility and accountability for the actions as a business. Society makes humans accountable and holds them responsible for a reason, we should not allow organizations to operate with out them.
    
    I know, 'good luck to me', I'm a bit of an idealist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Referring to companies in third person
    >However, there is no single person
    
    I've worked at several large corporations: pipeline companies, chemical plants, huge refineries. In most cases, there is a person who is responsible. Someone ordered the Deepwater Horizon to start pumping which lead to the spill. Companies prefer to show a unified face, so you may not ever know his/her name.
    
    Social shaming is highly effective. I have personally worked with TransCanada on their XL pipeline to make it safer. Everyone involved wants these pipelines to be leak-free. Sure, you have management who want to make sure you put the cheapest pipe in the ground that will work, but they do this in your interest too. Do you want to spend $20/gallon to have gold plated pipelines?
    
    Hitting them in the pocketbook is also very effective. Bailing out banks during the crisis was by far the most idiotic thing done. Instead, banks were bailed out and more regulation was put in; both which will only make things worse.
    
    Ultimately, people are responsible for their governments and businesses in their communities. If you don't want Gates or Jobs to be rich, don't buy Microsoft or Apple.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2012 @ 10:51am

'looking like an unsympathetic bully.'

so hands up those who actually think that Viacom gives a flying fuck about how they look and what they could have done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Silence8, 9 May 2012 @ 11:59am
  
  Re:
  I'm sure any backlash about this will seem like a tiny ripple in the ocean to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spointman (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 11:34am

So here's a fun question. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be getting this wrong. But I remember somewhere in copyright law, there are requirements on what has to happen before a copyright exists. If memory serves, it has to be in fixed form, and it has to be distributed to at least one other person. (I'm hazy on the last bit, but I remember something about authors' private drafts for a book not getting the same sort of copyright protection as a finished manuscript submitted to a publisher.) If the show never aired, does that mean it was never distributed, and therefore there is no copyright on that clip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Silence8, 9 May 2012 @ 11:54am
  
  Re:
  "If the show never aired, does that mean it was never distributed, and therefore there is no copyright on that clip?"
  
  Well since the first time it aired was on the internet, we, the internet, now own the copyright. Ta Daa!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No More Youtube, 9 May 2012 @ 8:31pm

Stop using youtube
Just stop going to youtube, use other video providers. Once youtube starts loosing ad revenue in big numbers, then things will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]