Viacom's Messy Relationship With YouTube and The Rise of Stephen Colbert 78
Presto Vivace writes with this story about how Stephen Colbert became a YouTube Megastar. "Clips from The Colbert Report soon became a staple at YouTube, a startup that was making it easier for anyone and everyone to upload and watch home movies, video blogs, and technically-illicit-but-increasingly-vanilla clips of TV shows from the day before. And Colbert’s show was about to find itself at the center of a conflict between entertainment media and the web over online video that’s shaped the last decade. In fact, The Colbert Report has been defined as much by this back-and-forth between Hollywood and the web as by the cable news pundits it satirizes....A year after The Colbert Report premiere, Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock. Five months later, Viacom sued YouTube and Google for copyright infringement, asking for $1 billion in damages. The value of these videos and their audiences were clear. The Colbert Report and “Stephen Colbert” are mentioned three times in Viacom’s complaint against YouTube, as much or more than any other show or artist."
Can't find anything on Youtube anymore (Score:1)
Viacom has Google running scared.
Re: (Score:1)
Viacom has Google running scared.
People keep posting video content of "banned" content on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be an easy problem to solve, if there weren't so many powerful people so keen on keeping it hard.
Similarly, in a world where one country can produce more than enough food to feed the entire planet, on an ongoing basis, you'd think the problem of world hunger would be easy to solve.
In a world where the overwhelming majority of the populace would prefer to feel safe every night when they go to sleep, you'd think the problem of war would be easy to solve.
We make these problems hard, because are petty
Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
It is hard. Producing a new creative work, be it a film, piece of software, book, or whatever, is hard and often expensive. Copying a creative work is cheap to the point that it's barely worth measuring the cost. Lots of influential companies have business models that revolve around doing the difficult thing for free and then charging for the easy thing to make up for it. They're eventually going to be displaced by companies that realise that it makes more sense to charge for the difficult thing - we're seeing this in software already, with open source companies giving away code that's already written for free and charging for writing new features or customisation (or, in some cases, entirely new programs).
In 100 years, people are going to look back on DRM and restrictive copyright in much the same way that we look back at the laws that required motor cars to have someone walk in front of them with a red flag. Regulations that can't possibly work in the long term, designed to prop up an industry that's suddenly found itself obsoleted by new technology.
Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, you can't capture a cable network and upload it to YouTube without permission. It took a lot of work to devise that scheme, and throws the concept of designing your own DVR out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
and throws the concept of designing your own DVR out the window.
Tell that to the tiny PC I have hooked up to my TV that is better than any DVR equipment I've ever received from a cable or satellite provider, and has an equipment cost of $6/month for the CableCARD.
There are several spin-your-own-DVR solutions out there, you just have to play the game. No, you can't use YouTube as your DVR; and that's not "designing your own DVR" anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Viacom has Google running scared.
People keep posting video content of "banned" content on a regular basis.
Google keeps taking down content that should be allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Viacom led the YouTube lawsuit era, but ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast and Fox/News Corp. followed behind. Content owners want you to watch on cable TV, not YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Content owners want you to watch on cable TV, not YouTube.
Why? They still get paid regardless.
Viacom and the other "content owners" collect billions of dollars a year from all the cable/satellite companies, just for the right to carry their programming. If I never watch a single minute of TV, Viacom and all the others still get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
They make more money by having your eyeballs on their channel, in the form of ratings-metered advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
TV ads are usually worth more per viewer than YouTube ads, because they get a large number of people to react at the same time, even in the age of TiVo people are still watching live streams for things like sports, and even an "I Love Lucy" effect (you know, jokes like water pressure changes based on Lucy's commercial timing) on popular shows.
Viacom and the other "content owners" collect billions of dollars a year from all the cable/satellite companies, just for the right to carry their programming. If I never watch a single minute of TV, Viacom and all the others still get paid.
Viacom doesn't get paid for what didn't work like Nick GaS (Games and Sports channel) or CBS Eye on People (a CBS News rerun channel). Why not? Because the channels no
CBS doesn't own Colbert (Score:1, Informative)
Steven Colbert doesn't work for CBS, his show is sold to Comedy Central and his future project is sold to CBS.
The Daily Show and Colbert report are part of Comedy Partners Inc., which was first the joint venture name for Viacom and AOL Time Warner when they shared the Comedy Central network, but is now the company headed by Jon Stewart that supplies the programs to Comedy Central.
Colbert is moving to replace David Letterman on Late Show, but that project is owned by Worldwide Pants which has run Late Night/
Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG WRONG WRONG!! And it gets modded up!!
"CBS will own and produce the new show, with Letterman's Worldwide Pants no longer having a role in the series after the "Colbert Report" host takes over."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/late-show-stephen-colbert-perfect-695173
Re: (Score:1)
Worldwide Pants is the production company owned by David Letterman. Looks like he won't be getting a cut of the new Colbert Show. But that's OK. Worldwide Pants owns Everybody Loves Raymond, which is still in syndication and has made a few gazillion dollars.. When Letterman retires next year I'm pretty sure he won't have to get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter to make ends meet.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But he is the last. After this, no more mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Poe's Law [wikipedia.org], but you can never be sure.
Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
I think it is useful to document the history (Score:3)
Lost His Balls (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Lost His Balls (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, Viacom probably didn't want to deal with subpoenas and a federal investigation [slashdot.org] from the comments of people like you.
pretty wise of them, really.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, damn right! If he'd been mean to Anita, she would have had to criticise him, which as we know is the worst infraction that any God-fearing white male could ever withstand from a woman. It's a good thing you're here to issue propaganda on behalf of a movement that is currently harrassing JIMMY FUCKING WALES for the crime of demanding impartiality on a Wikipedia article.
You are rapidly running out of friends. May I suggest you would be better received on 8chan or your circle-jerk subreddit?
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question... What kind of biscuits? If they are the cheddar ones from Red Lobster I think you wouldn't even need a ravenous anything to not eat every single one.
Fuck, put some shredded cheese and some old bay into some bisquick already, what year is it?
Re: (Score:1)
> stop fucking victimising them
You cannot stop victimizing SJWs. They will find offense anywhere because that's how they make a living. It's their job. Every time they cry harassment their patreon donations soar. They'll twist anything into racism, sexism, oppression and harassment. They are masters of raising the goal post.
Ironically they complain about harassment and at the same time harass people who don't agree with them off twitter, wikipedia, send them threatening objects (knives, dead animals) or
amazing how threatened you young boys are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
"young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
"young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
How is it an ad hominem attack to call people who threaten to rape her to make her shut up, or call anyone who talks her about the media in anything but an oppressively critical light 'sacrificing integrity' anything but "immature young boys"? That's exactly what they are.
Put it this way, if they don't want to be called misogynistic, immature boys who are whining like bratty children when someone they don't like says something they disagree with then they should probably stop acting like it.
PROTECT BALLS FROM SARKEESIAN! (Score:1, Insightful)
BUT ETHICS1!!111ONEONEONE! Yes, it's kind of amazing how this bunch of obnoxious gamergating cunts have been whipped up into such a misogynistic frenzy by fairly tame documentaries making relatively obvious observations about the formulaic and trope-ridden world of popular gaming. Maybe heavy cannabis use among dudebros is a contributory factor in the spectacular levels of paranoia on show.
Re: (Score:1)
It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly this is about ethics in gaming journalism; not about threats of extreme violence to silence dissent*.
*Even if it is composed entirely of such threats. Modern political debate. So meta.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
Whether she lies or not (what lies exactly - or are you just talking about disagreeing with her stance or her talking points?), the response to her is not to threaten to rape her, or doxx her, or call anyone who does a piece that is not critical of her "sacrificing integrity".
She has some extreme leaps of logic among some actual points, but the reaction to her has been nothing but immature whining and outright obscene and unacceptable behaviour towards her and anyone else who brings up the topic. You're ess
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of this Anita person before, but after watching the interview it looked to me like just a standard/funny Colbert interview. Shrug.
Btw, your youtube link was wrong. Here's the correct one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Colbert Report is a fictional comedy show. I hope you are refering to his professional integrity to deliver laughs, not news.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my. People this stupid really exist.
Hey kiddo, hate to burst your bubble, but Colbert was never on your side. I'll spell it out for you: he does a parody of a White Conservative Man.
And if this kind of rampant stupidity is a sample of the kind of comments that video was expected to attract, disabling comments seems eminently reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, his "Steven Colbert" act (that's what it is - an act) is just being a contrarian. He'll be the first to say that his entire interviewing style is to be disinterested in whoever it is that is there, and to just argue with them with the absolute most ridiculous contrary statements he can think of. He, in fact, tells his guests this before any cameras are turned on in order to let them have some fun with it too - he genuinely wants his guests to have a great time when they appear, and thus wa
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, you stupid gator prick.
if i was a famous celebrety like Colbert (Score:1)
WTF is Google ? (Score:1)
Massive Internet cultural assumption or what!
You mean he not only won Television (Score:3)
he also won the Youtube, and the Internet !
Gotten out of hand (Score:2)
I recently got two take-down requests for two videos I put up on YouTube. They were both trade-show demo reel videos that I helped produce showing post-produced results in television shows and movies from software I wrote. These videos were 20 years old, but I thought it would be good to preserve them.
Paramount wanted one taken down for a 2-second clip from a Paramount movie. Someone else wanted the other taken down because I guess they owned the copyright on the music we had bought to accompany the video.
O