YouTube Takes Down Comedy Central Clips

[Randypiper]

We might have to go directly to the web site to see The Daily Show and Colbert Report now.

http://www.newscloud.com/read/75528

[Reverend_Smitty]

1. awww for chrissakes

now how am I supposed to watch vintage Daily Show clips anymore? They don't put up the really old ones on the Comedy Central website and their interface sucks too

[Atman]

2. Doesn't anyone here understand what COPYRIGHTS are?

I'm just baffled that YouTUBE survives at all. Now that Google owns it, and there are deep pockets to sue, you'll be seeing a lot more stuff like this disappear, as well it should. It is totally wrong for these people to be profiting off the legally protected work product of another.

[MercutioATC]

5. Google is going to lose money on this acquisition.

YouTube is being Napsterized. Removing all of the illegal content removes a lot of its desirability as a destination site.

I wouldn't be surprised to see YouTube become another Napster in a few years.

[Atman]

8. And seven other sites will pop up to take YouTUBE's place.

Gotta love the internets (even if you don't love The Google!).

.

[sandnsea]

16. Fair Use

Just like quotes from an article, snips from a television program can be used for educational or commentating purposes. Not a copyright violation at all, except for chickenshit corporations who don't like the Constitution anyway.

[originalpckelly]

18. You are forgetting about the fair use doctrine:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I am surprised that something usually used for news talks is taken down. The idea of fair use is to allow people to debate current events, which sometimes includes copyrighted material. Allowing someone who owns the copyrighted material to prevent educated debate about impacts the free speech of Americans. It would be like trademarking the word wrong so no one can say anything is wrong with the government.

I think they should remove things after its news importance is gone, and they should not allow frivolous things not related to the news to be up on Youtube. Viewing content you would otherwise pay for, which only has entertainment value, violates the idea of the Fair Use doctrine.

I can see why something in that category might be removed.

We need to watch out how far we let companies go.

[Atman]

19. Not only am I not forgetting about it, I have it posted and linked on my site

Please don't assume so much. It would be very difficult for a lawyer to argue that posting segments of an entertainment program on a comedy channel are "educational" under the fair use doctrine.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

.

[sandnsea]

31. I disagree

I think they're all too chickenshit to do it. All hail Corporate America.

[xxqqqzme]

32. lighten up those clips are like free

commercials seen by hundreds every day. I knew selling it would destroy it - it always does. If it ain't broke comes to mind.

[Generic Other]

3. They get posted faster than they can be removed

The ones in my favorites still are up. But they did remove the Clinton/Wallace interview.

[Beelzebud]

4. I knew Google would be forced to neuter youtube....

That's why I was saddened to hear the creators of youtube sold out.

You know what should happen? Comedy Central should stop selling those 2 shows on iTunes, and start letting you watch them off their website...

Nothing like good old fashioned corporate greed to fuck up something that was actually cool to use.

[MercutioATC]

6. $1.65B will do that to you...

...and I'm not sure it's "selling out" when your initial position is ethically and legally indefensible (illegally posting copyrighted material) but I hear ya.

[Randypiper]

10. How is it legal for Crooks and Liars but not YouTube?

It can be so confusing.

[Atman]

14. Doesn't C&L post mainly NEWS stories?

And don't forget the relative size of the venues. Should C&L hit several million downloads a day and attract the attention of The Google, you can be sure they'd be more closely scrutinized, too.

.

[sandnsea]

40. Is CSpan NEWS??

Do you know that NOBODY can post CSpan clips? They must have a special team that does nothing but scour the internet and threaten anybody who posts anything off CSpan. Our own representatives and we can't post clips because CSpan owns the whole thing. Nobody will challenge them. It's complete bullshit and I can't understand anybody defending this garbage.

[Atman]

42. Nobody has apparently challenged them properly

We, as taxpayers, have already paid for CSpan's content, and also the salaries of 90% of the people (congresspeople, etc) whom they cover. I believe the case could reasonably be made that CSpan's restrictions are bullshit. But I'm not a lawyer, nor have I even spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express.

.

[Atman]

7. CC should stop selling them and GIVE them away?

Are you an investor in anything? Do you want the company in which you hold lots of stock to be GIVING AWAY the company's product, just because people like it? Sometimes "corporate greed" is simply "doing business." Again, just the tiniest bit of understanding of intellectual property law would make this all clear to anyone bitching at Google. Their purchase of YouTUBE puts them square in the target of any lawyer, and they're protecting their own shareholders. Does anyone know what the YOU is YouTUBE means? The site was intended as a "Flickr" for video...a place for people to post their own videos, not stuff owned by other people who are trying to make a living off their work.

.

[Beelzebud]

11. I understand why Google did what they did.

I'm just saying CC should let people watch those 2 shows on their (CC's) website.

Calm down. I didn't spit at you or anything.

[Atman]

12. Hey, come on...I'm perfectly calm.

I simply typed a response. What makes you think I'm not "calm?"

CC makes money off of ad revenues and iTunes downloads. I think everybody should give me free everything I really like, but the world doesn't work that way (said Atman, calmly sipping a cup of chamomile tea).



.

[Beelzebud]

17. Here is some food for thought from Comedy Central.

The Daily Show really exemplifies that sort of new model. It's on a cable network, not broadcast. It's among the most popular shows traded online. People download and watch the whole thing, every day. Were you guys aware of that?

Karlin: Not only am I not aware of that, I don't want to be aware of that.

Well, don't go shutting it down.

Stewart: We're not going to shut it down - we don't even know what it is. I'm having enough trouble just getting porn.

Karlin: If people want to take the show in various forms, I'd say go. But when you're a part of something successful and meaningful, the rule book says don't try to analyze it too much or dissect it. You shouldn't say: "I really want to know what fans think. I really want to understand how people are digesting our show." Because that is one of those things that you truly have no control over. The one thing that you have control over is the content of the show. But how people are reacting to it, how it's being shared, how it's being discussed, all that other stuff, is absolutely beyond your ability to control.
Stewart: I'm surprised people don't have cables coming out of their asses, because that's going to be a new thing. You're just going to get it directly fed into you. I look at systems like the Internet as a convenience. I look at it as the same as cable or anything else. Everything is geared toward more individualized consumption. Getting it off the Internet is no different than getting it off TV.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/stewart....

Suddenly my comment about CC hosting the shows for people to watch doesn't seem so crazy does it?

[NYCGirl]

20. That's not from Comedy Central. That's from Jon Stewart. NT

[Beelzebud]

23. So why aren't they more concerned? It's their show.

[NYCGirl]

24. They work for Comedy Central. They don't own it. NT

[Atman]

26. It is called "work for hire."

Anything you produce as work product for a company which supplies you a) workspace, b) the tools with which to do your job and c) a regular paycheck, is LEGALLY owned by the employer. Period. That is why, as an independent contractor, any work I create in my studio, I OWN. The end user technically only pays me for the rights to use it in various media. That's just the way it works.

.

[Occulus]

21. Blindly worshipping at the altar of copyright is just as bad as trying to destroy it. n/t

[Atman]

22. Well, ain't that a pantload!

"Blindly worshipping at the alter of copyright?"

I don't suppose you own any copyrights, then. I hold thousands, and I make my living off them. I am currently negotiating a complicated contract -- complicated because I am demanding "emerging media" be taken into account to help ensure the client doesn't say "Well, there was no such thing as floating holograms when we signed you!" and use that the way YouTube defenders are.

You just seem to have an utter lack of understanding what a copyright's purpose is. If you're upset that it protects the "evil corporations," that's too bad...because far more, it protects little guys like me from the evil corporations who would be stealing our work and using it for free faster than you can say "YOUTUBE" if it weren't for copyright laws.

.

[Occulus]

28. Thank you for publicly and extravagantly missing the point. n/t

[Atman]

33. Perhaps, then, you might expand beyond the subject line, eh?

If you HAVE a point, you obviously have not been able to make it on one line. Maybe you can actually explain what the hell you mean instead of just posting snarky subject lines. M'kay?

.

[sandnsea]

34. Oh please, it's free damned advertising

It's what most products beg for, to be pushed all over the internet. It reminds people to tune into these programs. This is as stupid as the fight against taping music from the radio. These idiots are going to destroy the internet and everybody will sit around with their fingers up their nose and wonder where it all went.

[Speck Tater]

9. Service again takes a back seat to greed.

If YouTube destroys its own usefulness then I have no further use for YouTube.

I'm not at all surprised at this turn of events, however. Corporate mentality just can't deal with anything beyond trying to make more money. The problem is they just don't grok how inovation (which results in valuable services to the community) is the real source of value, and therefore profit. Instead they focus on profit for its own sake and always lose sight of the real meaning and origin of value.

[NYCGirl]

13. Comedy Central is not a service company. They sell a product. NT

[montana500]

27. and Youtube is free product advertisement...

Bad business move to let Google yank them.

[NYCGirl]

29. That's why they host clips on Comedy Central's website. They'd rather you

go there.

[sandnsea]

37. And people comment on television

And use clips to do it. Word of mouth, the best marketing method and always has been. Geez, these companies PAY to have comments posted on Amazon and Epinions and what have you. Yet Comedy Central doesn't want the very same thing. I cannot believe how easy it is for these corporations to convince people they're being abused.

[Atman]

43. But the point STILL is, it is CC's property, and only they have the right...

...to grant usage rights.

.

[sandnsea]

48. What about Webb's book?

Does anybody have the right to quote passages in order to discuss the book? Obviously. It's the exact same thing. In fact, this has already been adjudicated to some extent with link cases when newspapers tried to say web sites couldn't even link to their sites. It only becomes illegal when a web site completely duplicates one particular site or so uses the notoriety of one site, specifically to make money. Duplicating Comedy Central is NOT YouTUBE's primary business strategy. It is no different than putting up snips of books or even snips of music.

[Atman]

49. Yes, as a matter of fact. Quoting a book is perfectly legit.

The law stipulates that passages for legitimate critical review are excepted. Add to that the newsworthy aspect of the Webb book quotes, and this one is a no-brainer. It is not "exactly like" posting comedy central segments just because we want to talk about them. Not even close.

.

[sandnsea]

52. Free speech isn't limited to news

Fair Use isn't limited to what the corporate media perceives as news either. It's whatever a group of individuals decide is educational and informative.

[Atman]

54. Tell it to the judge.

He'll dismiss your personal opinion in favor of the legal statutes, I'd suspect.



.

[montana500]

41. Their website stinks....

nm

[Atman]

44. Then write to them an tell them. But don't steal their products.

[kiahzero]

57. Stealing requires intent to permanently deprive.

There's no theft here.

[Atman]

61. You're correct. "Stealing" does imply something different, copyright-wise.

But it doesn't change the copyright law as it pertains to this discussion.

.

[Atman]

35. Nonsense

Only the people posting the stuff in violation of copyright law consider it "free advertising." Isn't it the purview of the owner of the copyright to determine if they even want or need such a freebie?

.

[sandnsea]

39. Or free speech and the right to criticize

Either frickin' way. Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to post Rush Limbaugh wiggling all over and mocking Michael J. Fox??? Bullshit. It's the same damn thing. No wonder we have such a helluva time protecting our rights.

[Atman]

45. It is NOT the same thing!

Rush's comments and the resulting furor were major NEWS stories, and once they crossed into that realm, were fair game.

.

[sandnsea]

50. It doesn't matter

Free speech is free speech and I can choose to talk about any damned thing I want to for whatever reason I want to. I *CAN* talk about entertainment as readily as politics or anything else. It's ALL protected speech.

I don't know who you've been listening to, but somebody has really blown some corporate smoke up your ass. And yes, I'm sure there are plenty of corporate lawyers and judges who would be happy to blow more of it.

[Atman]

53. How you get from stealing other's property to "free speech?"

No one is stopping you from talking about Comedy Central until you're blue in the face. Stand on a soap box and scream about it to the world. That is your RIGHT.

It is NOT your right to take someone else's work property and try to make a buck off of it. YOU may not have personally been trying to profit from the YouTUBE postings, but once a FOR PROFIT corporation starts posting someone else's content, there are just not too many grey areas here. I am amazed this seems so difficult for you to comprehend. Do I have the right to publish home movies of your kids and sell them to other people? You really need a primer on "protected free speech," versus stolen work product.

.

[sandnsea]

55. Yes, in fact, you DO

The minute I publish something, anybody has the right to take snippets of that published work and discuss them. That's almost the entire basis of newspapers and magazines - discussing what other people do - FOR PROFIT. It's stunning to me that you don't understand that.

[Atman]

56. And how many copyrights do YOU hold? Magazines have you published?

And again; so you're asserting that I can take any intellectual property Sandnsea Company creates and re-sell it for my own personal gain without regard to your legal IP rights?

Interesting world you live in.

Your further assertion as to what the "entire basis of newspapers and magazines" is is ludicrous. Newspapers and magazines have paid employees to write original content for them, at which point they OWN the original stories they publish. The newsworthy events they report on, you're free to report on yourself, and then sell to others if you'd like. It's called "syndication." They contract with places like the AP or Reuters, etc, who grant them LICENSES to re-print their work, FOR A FEE. Not a single story you read in your newspaper got there for free. Every word is PAID FOR by someone, and the IP rights to those stories controlled by someone, as much as you'd like to deny reality. As a former magazine publisher myself, I'd have sued your ass in a New York minute if you were to take the work that I'd paid my employees to create, and sold it in another venue. It simply isn't legal, any way you try to rationalize it.



.

[sandnsea]

59. YouTUBE isn't reselling anything

People are reporting on things themselves, just like a journalist. They put up clips and discuss. I'm going to publish a picture right now. If anybody wants to use it to discuss halloween in some generic sense, they can. They can't take the picture and reproduce it for ad campaigns or greeting cards or posters. They can write or film, and even get paid, for an article that discusses this photograph.

[Atman]

60. They can because you just granted them permission in writing.

Technically, every post on this board is copyrighted by the original poster, believe it or not. If Skinner really wanted to waste his time and money, for instance, he could conceivable stop CU from posting it's "Best of DU" section because the posts contained therein are copyrighted. It wouldn't be worth the trouble, but he'd have a case.

Thanks for the posts. Your understanding of copyright law is purely pedestrian, wherein I'm posting from the position of a copyright holder who negotiates copyright contracts all the time. You're simply wrong, although I admire your tenacity in attempting to convince me otherwise.

.

[sandnsea]

63. Oh for pete's sake

No, it has nothing to do with me giving anybody written permission. Artwork, photographs, anything, can be reproduced for discussion/educational purposes. It is simply - the law.

In addition, the only reason DU owns the copyright to what's written here is because users agree to that when they sign up. If somebody else posts my words here from my own blog, then DU doesn't own that copyright. At the same time, I can't stop somebody from posting my words from my blog because once I publish them, they're open for reproduction for debate purposes. That's why DU has a 4 paragraph copyright limit, fair use for discussion purposes.

My understanding of copyright law is just fine, thank you very much. Yours, on the otherhand, is only useful for corporate whores.

[chat_noir]

15. They might put up their own channel

CBS has it own, and MSNBC frequently refers to You Tube for videos.

[lonestarnot]

25. That is a direct result of "the google" purchase my guess.

[NYCGirl]

30. My guess is that it would've happened anyway. Google is just a bigger target

to sue.

[Atman]

36. Once again, DUers decide that an inconvenient law should be ignored

The law is still the law. Bitch all you want about whether or not YOU think it is free advertising or promotion (for a company who didn't ask for it). It is pure rationalization to claim there is nothing wrong with violating the law just because the violation provides us with stuff we like.

.

[lonestarnot]

38. You are right, but strange that the "right" thing occurred after

the purchase.

[Atman]

46. I don't argue that point!

Often the "right" thing only appears to people when cold hard cash is involved.

Did you see Real Time last night? (You can probably find it on YouTUBE! LOL!) Bill made some excellent points about how our society has completely lost its soul in our relentless pursuit of MONEY and STUFF over all else that is really important.

.

[BuyingThyme]

47. Huge mistake.

[survivor999]

51. And after all is taken down...

Nobody will go to the site anymore.

[liberalpragmatist]

58. What's Colbert gonna do?

Especially since he's been so into using YouTube as a way to cultivate the fanbase?

[Atman]

62. Maybe nothing. There is nothing "to do" if one party doesn't feel agrieved.

People re-post my cartoons without permission all the time. Depending upon who does it, for what reason, I usually don't say anything or demand they remove them. Plus, I put my full URL and credit in every cartoon, so I do get "free" promotion out of it, which I don't mind. Someone at Comedy Central obviously minds, or else none of us would even be having this discussion.

.

[phylny]

64. Hmm. I just showed my girls the green screen challenge.

Perhaps they're not all down yet?