Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
from the funny-how-that-works dept
As you may recall, back in 2007, entertainment giant Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, arguing that it was nothing more than a piracy site. Of course, Viacom's case faltered, badly, when it was later revealed that over 100 of the videos it listed as infringing had been... uploaded by Viacom employees as part of a marketing strategy. That act alone showed that even Viacom employees recognized the site had "substantial noninfringing uses." After seven years of battling it out in court, the two sides finally settled last year. However, it does seem noteworthy that Paramount Pictures, the major Hollywood movie studio that is owned by Viacom just announced that it had posted over 100 of its own movies for free on YouTube in their entirety.This is important for a variety of reasons, but most of all it shows that, once again, when legacy entertainment firms learn how to embrace new technologies, rather than sue them, they're better off. Legacy entertainment companies have basically tried to sue or kill every new technological innovation that somehow challenged new business models. They sued over radio, television, VCRs, cable TV, MP3 players, DVRs and internet video. And yet, once they learned how to use each of those, they realized how great these platforms were in helping to distribute, to promote and to monetize their works.
If Viacom had succeeded in its lawsuits and killed off YouTube, would these movies be available for free online today? I think most people would agree the answer is "no way."
This is a big part of the reason why I get concerned about attempts to shut down businesses that some insist are "nothing but piracy sites." The VCR was "nothing but a piracy tool." The MP3 player was "nothing but a piracy tool." Radio was "nothing but a piracy tool." And YouTube was "nothing but a piracy site." And yet... given the chance to grow and to innovate, these services show that they are successful because they're providing a better product. Suing them out of existence takes away opportunities like this, where companies learn that they can benefit from these (often free!) services to better promote, distribute and monetize their own works. It's easy to think that something that is often used for infringing works in the early days is never going to be anything useful or legitimate, but that ignores the history of innovation in this space. Every new innovation originally looked like a piracy tool. Until it no longer did. Perhaps, rather than trying to kill off every new service, Hollywood should take a lesson and realize that maybe it should be figuring out better ways to embrace them early on, rather than many years later.
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: copyright, free, free movies, innovation, movies, piracy sites, promotion, youtube
Companies: google, paramount pictures, viacom, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
The prior Youtube battle by another division is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
The same can be applied to why would movie studios store there accounts on Megaupload the same Megaupload that they "allege" is a hotbed of piracy that funds terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between Paramount and piracy is that Paramount makes and owns the content, can do what wishes with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If I want to smash my hand with a hammer and blame you when it hurts that's my right!"
And then doing the Exact. Same. Thing. every time a new tool is presented to them, whining all the while about how the latest tool is clearly only good for smashing hands, and has no other possible use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Billion Dollars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
77% of the comments go to the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
Usually it's about the equivalent of listening to a fanatical catholic and a fanatical atheist argue about the existence of god when you're trying to watch a documentary about cars. Hence, I suspect, the inevitable ignoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
I'm of the mind that Techdirt should add switch for this in the personal settings with three options:
1) Hide reported comments - works like it does presently
2) Collapse reported comments - hides reported comments and all responses to the reported comments
3) Show all - doesn't hide anything (but does indicate somewhere which comments have reached the hide threshold)
That way everyone could be happy.
I actually like it when comment threads go off topic here. It's not very often in real life that one has to limit their conversation to a specific topic when talking amongst their peers, so I just don't see why it's such a issue for some people when threads veer off-topic here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
Ha! Way to pull a car analogy out of nowhere! Nice!
Agree with you 100%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Vault's Banner
Similarly, the Vault features a video promoting the vault, and none of the movie clips used there (e.g. Titanic, Grease, Transformers, etc) are in the Vault either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best part
To be fair, there are some more recent titles available, so that's not a blanket statement, just something I noticed.
But the cynic in me thinks this may actually be a ploy to get some sort of renewed protection on films that have not been made available in any legal way for decades, so they don't appear to be abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every. Single. Video.
If that's not a bad PR campaign, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video not available
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is obvious.
Come on all you lawyers out there. Don't suffer the existence of barratrous weasels in your midst tarring all those practicing your profession with their atrocious conduct. Up your game by deep sixing them to the bottom of the ocean with the other ten thousand!
For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. It's time the legal profession came up to speed on Newtonian physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're being setup
First, Paramount (a subsidiary of Viacom) uploade the movies. Next, Viacom has one of its "find infringing content" subsidiary company file take-down notices with YouTube. Then Viacom resumes suing YouTube for hosting infringing content.
And as for the question of whether these movies would be available online if YouTube wasn't around? Of course! The movies would be available on Paramount's site, playable only with their proprietary video player designed to be as hard to use as possible, preferably on systems running Windows ME with IE 7 or Netscape 5.
The low traffic and viewership numbers would then prove to executives that people don't want to watch movies online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're being setup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I ever see that in a subject line of an email from an unknown sender, you can be sure it's heading to the deleted items with a quickness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi rez or low rez?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hi rez or low rez?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hi rez or low rez?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hi rez or low rez?
And Hollywood will lay the blame totally at piracy due to the lack of sales caused by people who simply watch the low res. free version instead of buying the high res. paid version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzMVH2jEyEwXPBvyht8xQNw/playlists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please help in hiding this comment; out_of_the_blue considers hidden comments to be irrefutably true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useless for me.
Fortunately I found this site called the "the pirate of bay" that has all of them conveniently available in very good HD formats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Useless for me. (seconded)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videos not working
Good job Viacom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Videos not working
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]