Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Viacom Pulled My Video

Other Talk "Otterville"

Viacom Pulled My Video

Old 05-23-08, 07:15 AM
  #1  
Suspended
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,789
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Viacom Pulled My Video

I received an email from YouTube this morning at 3am, stating that one of my videos had been removed for copyright violations.

The claim was submitted by Viacom (parent company of MTV, and others) regarding a clip I'd uploaded of from the 1991 MTV Video Music Awards show. It was a brief video of Paul Reubens' last appearance in character as Pee Wee Herman, just a few months after his arrest on July 26, 1991 for indecent exposure in a adult movie theater.
Dear Member:
This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom International Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Pee Wee Herman Returns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hutrOfYzR4A

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Be aware that there may be adverse legal consequences in your country if you make a false or bad faith allegation of copyright infringement by using this process.

Sincerely,
YouTube, Inc.
This is what sucks about these giant corporations sending out these huge sweeping "copyright infringement" notifications without paying any attention to what's getting pulled. I could understand if MTV were set to release a DVD of all the memorable moments from their award shows over the years. But this clip was harmless. It wasn't taking money from anyone or anything, because it's not available anywhere for anyone to see. And now that's true again.

Yes, I understand that no matter what the case, I didn't own the rights to put it online. But there really needs to be some leeway for things that are of interest to many people and doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet. It's similar to what I went off on a rant about in my last podcast. If it's not available anywhere for anyone to see, then let the people who have it make it available to those who want to see it. If you make it available, we'll take it down, simple as that.
Old 05-23-08, 07:20 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
just like it wouldn't be wikipedia without grundle, it wouldn't be youtube without you posting content there
Old 05-23-08, 07:35 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For posting a Paul Reubens clip, you're lucky your video was the only thing being pulled.
Old 05-23-08, 09:38 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: MN
Posts: 5,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They have been pulling a lot there has also been some issues of them pulling all the video game reviewers for unspecified reasons.
Old 05-23-08, 09:59 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Unique New York
Posts: 4,250
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I lost my Youtube account after several violations filed by Fox and Viacom.
Old 05-23-08, 10:04 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,881
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It has nothing to do with whether the clip is harmless or unlikely to hurt them financially. Viacom hates YouTube, because they refused to start paying Viacom for the various clips of theirs hosted at YT. So now they pull anything that comes from one of their channels, out of spite more than anything.
Old 05-23-08, 10:08 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sacramento, Calif.
Posts: 13,525
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I posted a 3 minute clip of suriving footage of a German Laurel & Hardy film and it got pulled. The film is still lost - it's not complete, there's 3 minutes of fragments of footage remaining and you wouldn't think there'd be copyright on something of this nature from 1931.. but some German company claimed ownership and it got yanked.

It's a shame, a lot of people in the US had never seen it.

That's how YouTube works though. There's some stuff on there that gets pulled like nothing but others that stay up for eons that should be pulled.
Old 05-23-08, 10:50 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Copyright law is broken.
Old 05-23-08, 12:17 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 41,309
Received 68 Likes on 54 Posts
This sort of crap reminds me of the spoiled bastard that would rather take his ball and go home instead of playing with others. That fucker.
Old 05-23-08, 12:27 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
the fucking Chet Baker estate is the most nazi of these 'video pulling' groups... Chet is completely missing on Youtube... i hate those bastards... there was an excellent 'My Funny Valentine' up on Youtube for a while... one of the best versions i had heard, and since it was live, there is no way to hear it now...

the only Chet Baker on Youtube now is the 'protest' video of that guy calling the Chet Baker estate morons for pulling all his stuff... what morons they are...

thanks to Sevenload i still have some of that '87 Japan concert...

and Van Morrison's people are the same... that video of Van and John Lee Hooker doing 'Lining In The Past' by that lake?... the video of Van and Dylan at the Acropolis doing 'Wild Rover'... there is no way to get that music, period... and i had watched them like 100 times each... then the Van Morrison people got Nazi, now there is no Van Morrison on Youtube... unless you get to it before it's noticed and pulled...

those two videos were some of the best Van Morrison i had ever heard... no way to hear them now... what was the point?...

Last edited by Dr Mabuse; 05-23-08 at 12:30 PM.
Old 05-29-08, 03:21 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca
Posts: 1,856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The latest version of Realplayer allows you to download the clips easily.

It used to be a lot of work to download them the old way.

My advice, as soon as you see something you like, anything, download it.
Old 05-29-08, 10:25 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,760
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
I put up a few guitar hero clips of me playing - since I obviously don't own the rights to the songs, am I infringing on copyright?
Old 05-29-08, 10:27 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 10,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, Viacom came over last night and pulled my... video as well.
Old 05-29-08, 03:52 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mrs. Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: With Nick Danger
Posts: 18,273
Likes: 0
Received 97 Likes on 59 Posts
OP, don't ever apply your logic to my artwork, okay? Otherwise, I'll have to sue your pants off.

By your logic, since I am not selling prints of a particular drawing, it would be okay for you to circulate some.

I caught someone selling cheap knock-offs of my art once. He tried to argue that he wasn't hurting my business, because the people buying his cheap crap were not going to be buying anything from me. I had his testicles for earrings. Stupid jerk.
Old 05-29-08, 03:58 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Augusta, GA USA
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Viacom killed my dog and raped my sister.

It's time to stand up to them! No more!
Old 05-29-08, 04:23 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mopower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,726
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mrs. Danger
OP, don't ever apply your logic to my artwork, okay? Otherwise, I'll have to sue your pants off.

I'm not a lawyer but I doubt you can sue someone for applying logic.
Old 05-29-08, 04:28 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse
the fucking Chet Baker estate is the most nazi of these 'video pulling' groups... Chet is completely missing on Youtube... i hate those bastards... there was an excellent 'My Funny Valentine' up on Youtube for a while... one of the best versions i had heard, and since it was live, there is no way to hear it now...

the only Chet Baker on Youtube now is the 'protest' video of that guy calling the Chet Baker estate morons for pulling all his stuff... what morons they are...

thanks to Sevenload i still have some of that '87 Japan concert...

and Van Morrison's people are the same... that video of Van and John Lee Hooker doing 'Lining In The Past' by that lake?... the video of Van and Dylan at the Acropolis doing 'Wild Rover'... there is no way to get that music, period... and i had watched them like 100 times each... then the Van Morrison people got Nazi, now there is no Van Morrison on Youtube... unless you get to it before it's noticed and pulled...

those two videos were some of the best Van Morrison i had ever heard... no way to hear them now... what was the point?...
OK, "Dr" (I am quite sure there is no genuine degree corresponding to that moniker), let's start with fundamentals of "property" ownership. Recorded performances, songs, videos, etc. are the property of their respective creators, just like the car you bought is your property. Artists (or the publishers/estates/copyright owners of their works) are NOT "obligated" to make those works publicly available, just because some joe sixpack thinks it's a "cool" song or video. Nope. That is what copyright laws are for. They protect the property rights of the owners. If you make and/or distribute copies of those works without authorization (and yes, posting on YouTube IS copying/distributing!) you are violating the owner's rights. And the owner is fully justified in getting the illegal material pulled. In fact, people who post such material without authorization should consider themselves lucky that they're not being sued (justifiably) for copyright violation. Just because computers and the internet make it easy to copy and distribute things, does not mean it is "right" or even legal.

Ask Mrs. D. She's an artist and understands the importance of protecting the rights to one's creations. You're just some kid who wants a bunch of free stuff on his computer. Sorry, you are wrong and your opinions on IP rights scream of naivete. (I can't make the accent thingie there, so just imagine I did.)

Originally Posted by Mopower
I'm not a lawyer but I doubt you can sue someone for applying logic.
I'm pretty sure she was referring to suing for any actions taken based on that application of logic!
Old 05-29-08, 05:26 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by drmoze
OK, "Dr" (I am quite sure there is no genuine degree corresponding to that moniker), let's start with fundamentals of "property" ownership. Recorded performances, songs, videos, etc. are the property of their respective creators, just like the car you bought is your property. Artists (or the publishers/estates/copyright owners of their works) are NOT "obligated" to make those works publicly available, just because some joe sixpack thinks it's a "cool" song or video. Nope. That is what copyright laws are for. They protect the property rights of the owners. If you make and/or distribute copies of those works without authorization (and yes, posting on YouTube IS copying/distributing!) you are violating the owner's rights. And the owner is fully justified in getting the illegal material pulled. In fact, people who post such material without authorization should consider themselves lucky that they're not being sued (justifiably) for copyright violation. Just because computers and the internet make it easy to copy and distribute things, does not mean it is "right" or even legal.

Ask Mrs. D. She's an artist and understands the importance of protecting the rights to one's creations. You're just some kid who wants a bunch of free stuff on his computer. Sorry, you are wrong and your opinions on IP rights scream of naivete. (I can't make the accent thingie there, so just imagine I did.)
Can you explain to me how intangible digital files that are infinitely copyable can in any way be logically treated as tangible goods? Especially in the case of things like the OP's clip from the 1991 MTV Movie Awards, where a) the material is not made comercially available anywhere, b) the existence of said clip does not in any way "steal" the property of Viacom, since Viacom has actually lost nothing (they can't even make the dubious "lost sales" argument) and c) Viacom is free to make this material commercially available at any point in time.

And in any case, "intellectual property" rights are a legal fiction designed to promote creativity and innovation, not to give people and corporations unlimited revenue streams.

Last edited by Tracer Bullet; 05-29-08 at 05:28 PM.
Old 05-29-08, 05:29 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Can you explain to me how intangible digital files that are infinitely copyable can in any way be logically treated as tangible goods? Especially in the case of things like the OP's clip from the 1991 MTV Movie Awards, where a) the material is not made comercially available anywhere, b) the existence of said clip does not in any way "steal" the property of Viacom, since Viacom has actually lost nothing (they can't even make the dubious "lost sales" argument) and c) Viacom is free to make this material commercially available at any point in time.
I will refer you to any primer on copyright law fundamentals. (Hint: As soon as the content is stored in a medium such as a CD/DVD or computer memory, it is indeed "tangible.") I'll let you look up the rest for yourself. Trust me, it's the law.

And again, it DOESN'T MATTER whether the copyright owner makes it commercially available. It is STILL the property of the owner. Can you justify stealing a neighbor's car just because he keeps it in a garage and never drives it?

And "intellectual property" rights are far more than a legal fiction. Billions of dollars change hands every day because of it, and will continue to do so. They are very real property rights, regardless of your contrary "opinion." The revenue stream from them, like for any other form of property, can continue as long as people are willing to pay for what is protected by those rights.

Last edited by drmoze; 05-29-08 at 05:34 PM.
Old 05-29-08, 05:41 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by drmoze
I will refer you to any primer on copyright law fundamentals. (Hint: As soon as the content is stored in a medium such as a CD/DVD or computer memory, it is indeed "tangible.") I'll let you look up the rest for yourself. Trust me, it's the law.

And again, it DOESN'T MATTER whether the copyright owner makes it commercially available. It is STILL the property of the owner. Can you justify stealing a neighbor's car just because he keeps it in a garage and never drives it?

And "intellectual property" rights are far more than a legal fiction. Billions of dollars change hands every day because of it, and will continue to do so. They are very real property rights, regardless of your contrary "opinion." The revenue stream from them, like for any other form of property, can continue as long as people are willing to pay for what is protected by those rights.
I know you're speaking legally, so I'll let you slide.

Also, please don't speak down to me. I know quite a bit about copyright law. I'm certainly not an expert, but neither am I some script-kiddie who just wants to download the entirety of Usenet to avoid paying for things.

I am speaking of the intent of copyright, not the bastardized, broken, corporate-whore version of it we have now.

When I steal my neighbor's car he has been denied use of his car. When I steal a CD from a music store, I am depriving that store of a sale (you will notice that I very pointedly did not mention physical manifestations of creative works).

In posting a video to Youtube, I am technically committing a copyright violation, if that material is indeed copyrighted (Youtube does not check the validity of the copyright). However, law divorced from reality is of no use to anyone, so what exactly is the provable harm to Viacom? In what way do takedown notices promote creativity and innovation?
Old 05-29-08, 05:42 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by drmoze
OK, "Dr" (I am quite sure there is no genuine degree corresponding to that moniker), let's start with fundamentals of "property" ownership.


i had missed this...

in your lame attempt to be condescending, you dolted yourself out like a chump...

you don't know who Dr Mabuse is???...



lets, apparently more importantly, start with the fundamentals of forum names there "dr"... if someone has a forum name of 'Rambo', that doesn't mean they are actually John Rambo... they may have chosen the name of a film character, or in my case a character from literature who later was put on film, as this is a film based forum... you follow?...



and if you think you're being condescending, or clever, and you say something along the lines of "ok "Rambo"(I am quite sure you are not actually John Rambo, the man from the movies)" or something like that... you look like a dolt...

man this is a classic...
Old 05-29-08, 07:24 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
I know you're speaking legally, so I'll let you slide.

Also, please don't speak down to me. I know quite a bit about copyright law. I'm certainly not an expert, but neither am I some script-kiddie who just wants to download the entirety of Usenet to avoid paying for things.

I am speaking of the intent of copyright, not the bastardized, broken, corporate-whore version of it we have now.

When I steal my neighbor's car he has been denied use of his car. When I steal a CD from a music store, I am depriving that store of a sale (you will notice that I very pointedly did not mention physical manifestations of creative works).

In posting a video to Youtube, I am technically committing a copyright violation, if that material is indeed copyrighted (Youtube does not check the validity of the copyright). However, law divorced from reality is of no use to anyone, so what exactly is the provable harm to Viacom? In what way do takedown notices promote creativity and innovation?
A few points, and I'll be straight up. (I am probably overly-sensitive to the script-kiddies who think everything should be free and downloadable; I'd like to see them work hard at something someday and then get it ripped off, just to know how it can affect things):

My analogy may not have been the best, but stealing your neighbor's car is not denying him use of it if he chooses never to drive it. He's not missing out on having transportation, just like Viacom, etc. aren't missing out on the use of their video content if they're not currently selling it.

Any creative work in tangible form IS copyrighted by the owner, whether or not it is registered. No specific action need be taken to copyright something. However, registration is necessary to assert your rights to the work. (Ironically or coincidentally, I sat through a two-hour seminar just this afternoon on copyright and trademark fundamentals, although I already am well familiar with these topics.)

Takedown notices primarily prevent the host of sites from being liable for copyright violations by visitors/contributors to the site. In reality, the copyright owners *could* go after the individuals who are violating their rights. Practically, it allows contribution-based websites to exist without bringing everything to a screeching halt. (If site owners and ISPs were liable for violations based on hosted content, there would be no hosted content!)

These restrictions protect the copyright owners. If they don't assert their rights, and knowingly let people copy/distribute copyrighted material, they lose rights to it. Clearly, they care enough to send the takedown notices upon recognizing that their copyrighted material is being distributed without authorization. The alternative is that it becomes public domain.

And who is to say they might not want to release or license this material someday? More importantly, where would you draw the line? Is it ok to steal such material if the owner isn't currently profiting from it? If you *think* the owner is never going to sell it? Isn't going to sell it in the near future? As I mentioned before, the owner of IP is the owner, and has the right to prevent others from copying or distributing it, whether or not they are currently selling it, making it available, whatever. If they knowingly let other people steal it, they lose the rights to it. Clearly, the IP owners made some investment at some point to produce the material. Are you saying they should just give it away? (They can if they want to, but that is much different from letting people steal it.)

In essence, the general public has NO right to freely own, copy and distribute material that was created by someone else, regardless of what the owner does or doesn't do with it.

As an aside to "Dr Mabuse": Yes, I get the literary reference. Nice attempt at changing the subject when your substantive points have been totally denied. My comment was a somewhat indirect (but obvious) allusion to your displayed lack of knowledge/education with respect to intellectual property law and concepts. FWIW, I do have an education and a lot of experience in this particular field. (I would never consider a JD as a doctoral degree, but I do have a doctorate as well.) So, by contrast, I actually know what I'm talking about here. And you would not believe the ridiculous amounts of money I get paid to help people and businesses obtain and protect their IP rights.
Old 05-29-08, 08:06 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,058
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by drmoze
These restrictions protect the copyright owners. If they don't assert their rights, and knowingly let people copy/distribute copyrighted material, they lose rights to it. Clearly, they care enough to send the takedown notices upon recognizing that their copyrighted material is being distributed without authorization. The alternative is that it becomes public domain.
I understand your points and agree with you, as far as it goes. Now I get to disagree.

The first point is that the public domain as a practical matter no longer exists. Congress has effectively neutered it by continuing to grant copyright extension after copyright extension.

The second point is that takedown notices are a function of how copyright law currently works. There is no reason why it must work this way.

And who is to say they might not want to release or license this material someday? More importantly, where would you draw the line? Is it ok to steal such material if the owner isn't currently profiting from it? If you *think* the owner is never going to sell it? Isn't going to sell it in the near future? As I mentioned before, the owner of IP is the owner, and has the right to prevent others from copying or distributing it, whether or not they are currently selling it, making it available, whatever. If they knowingly let other people steal it, they lose the rights to it. Clearly, the IP owners made some investment at some point to produce the material. Are you saying they should just give it away? (They can if they want to, but that is much different from letting people steal it.)
If the copyright holder wants to release it, I think that's great. However, after a certain length of time, I believe it is in our best interest as a society to tell creators that they can't keep things locked away forever. I'm sure you're aware of the documentary film problem, for example. This is mostly footage of arguably no commercial value that cannot be used except by paying an exorbinant licensing fee. As a result, many documentaries get abandoned. This is plainly not the purpose of copyright. Put more bluntly, you should not be eligible for a no-fixed-duration revenue stream as a creator. George Lucas should not still be making money off Star Wars.

If 14 years with one extension was good enough for the Founding Fathers, I think it should be good enough for us.

Last edited by Tracer Bullet; 05-29-08 at 08:13 PM.
Old 05-29-08, 08:36 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,010
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by drmoze
These restrictions protect the copyright owners. If they don't assert their rights, and knowingly let people copy/distribute copyrighted material, they lose rights to it.
This is true for trademarks, but there is no requirement to defend your copyright or let it fall into the public domain.
Old 05-29-08, 09:02 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WallyOPD
This is true for trademarks, but there is no requirement to defend your copyright or let it fall into the public domain.
Busted, dammit. I zoned out during the seminar!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.