WebProNews

Tag: Viacom

  • ViacomCBS Sells CNET for $500 Million

    ViacomCBS Sells CNET for $500 Million

    ViacomCBS has sold legendary tech news site CNET to South Carolina based Red Ventures LLC. The company announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire CNET Media Group from ViacomCBS for $500 million. Red Ventures purchased Bankrate in 2017 for $1.24 billion and Healthline Media for an undisclosed amount last year. Red Ventures CEO Ric Elias told WSJ that CNET’s value is due to the fact that digital technology has spread to many sectors of American business.

    Technology news leader CNET paved the way for CNET Media Group, a portfolio of digital media brands that advise consumers across leading consumer tech, business tech, gaming, and entertainment. Their brands include ZDNet, Gamespot,  TVGuide, Metacritic, Chowhound and several others.

    “Red Ventures believes in the power of premium content from trusted brands that help people make better life decisions,” said Ric Elias, Red Ventures CEO and Co-Founder. “Over the last 25 years CNET Media Group has built a dynamic portfolio of brands with well-earned authority on such topics as consumer tech and gaming that play an increasingly important role in people’s lives. Red Ventures is eager to invest in CNET Media Group’s growth with more personalized consumer experiences that will reinvigorate CNET Media Group’s brands and unlock unprecedented opportunity for all.”

    “I am incredibly excited about CNET Media Group’s future. I believe that the combination of Red Ventures customer experience platform and CNET Media Group’s rich content and deep editorial expertise greatly benefits both our audiences and our partners,” said Mark Larkin, Executive Vice President and GM of CNET Media Group. “Red Ventures shares our vision and is committed to realizing the full potential of our portfolio of world-class brands.”

    Red Ventures was formed in 2000 as a performance marketing startup and has since grown to include more than 100 digital brands with more than 3,000 employees across 10 US cities, the UK and Brazil. It has two sides to its business – one is a sophisticated, partner-centric platform for performance marketing, and the other is a robust, consumer-centric platform for digital brands. Red Ventures’ existing brands operate in the Home Services, Health, Finance, Travel, Education, and Entertainment verticals. The acquisition of the CNET Media Group accelerates Red Ventures’ entry into new verticals, including Consumer Tech and Gaming.

    “Every aspect of our lives – from our homes to our jobs, our income, and our well-being is impacted by the technology around us, so the content we consume and the brands we choose are highly personal,” said Marc McCollum, President of Red Ventures’ Media & Technology group. “Adding CNET Media Group to our portfolio will further advance our mission to help people make some of the most important decisions of their lives. It will be a win for our teams, for our businesses, and most of all, for visitors and fans of the CNET Media Group’s brands.”

  • Amazon Is Dropping Crappy Reality Shows from Prime Instant Video

    Amazon Is Dropping Crappy Reality Shows from Prime Instant Video

    It could be because it wants to really go after Netflix in the original content game. It could be because it just thinks that type of TV sucks. Either way, Amazon has reportedly decided to ditch some reality programming.

    Bloomberg quotes the ubiquitous “people with knowledge on the matter” who say that Amazon is working to drop shows like Teen Mom and Mob Wives from its Prime Instant Video offerings.

    Amazon currently has a deal with Viacom, whose networks air said reality shows. Amazon is apparently looking to keep a deal in place with Viacom to still offer many if its shows – just not some of the lagging reality titles. Apparently, Amazon just has reality show fatigue:

    Viacom isn’t the only programmer grappling with shrinking audiences for reality TV. Amazon this year also declined to renew a deal with A+E Networks, which supplied “Pawn Stars” and “Storage Wars,” the people said. Some of the Viacom shows are still in production. The shrinking value of reality shows may have contributed to the $785 million charge Viacom took last quarter, said David Bank, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets.

    Amazon looks to be taking notes from Netflix, who ditched Viacom in 2013. “Netflix at the time said that it had little desire to pay Viacom’s fees for ‘nonexclusive bulk content.’ Netflix also said that it would be willing to pay for select titles, but not Viacom’s entire library,” says CNET.

    Through Teen Mom does really, really suck, Amazon’s move is pure business. If they don’t have to pay Viacom for Teen Mom, it can spend the money it saves on more original programming to battle Netflix, HBO, and other big-name original series-producing entities. Not only that, but reality TV ain’t what it used to be.

    Image via Teen Mom, Facebook

  • Google And Viacom Settle Once And For All

    Google And Viacom Settle Once And For All

    Google and Viacom have finally settled their lengthy legal battle over copyright once and for all. The companies both announced the news Tuesday morning.

    Here’s their joint statement: “Google and Viacom today jointly announced the resolution of the Viacom vs. YouTube copyright litigation. This settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.”

    Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

    The two companies have been battling for a long seven years. In 2007 (the year after Google acquired it), Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion claiming “massive intentional copyright infringement”. Viacom alleged that YouTube contained roughly 160,000 infringing videos, which had then accumulated over a billion and a half views.

    The battle raged on for years. In 2010, it looked like Google was victorious. Google even claimed a victory on its blog, as the court granted its motion for summary judgment, deciding YouTube is protected by safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

    Obviously Viacom continued to fight, and last year, YouTube scored another victory when a federal court rejected Viacom’s suit. Google called that an “important day for the Internet” (twice in the same announcement).

    But the battle continued. Until now.

    Stick a fork in it.

    Image via YouTube

  • Colbert: Daft Punk Cancellation Prompts Epic Get Lucky Dance Party

    It’s that time again – StePhest Colbchella time. That magical time of year when The Colbert Report gets a bit more musical.

    And what a lineup for the 2013 network TV music fest. Daft Punk! Hell yeah, Daft Punk on Colbert!

    “That’s right folks. French electro-pop mega-stars Daft Punk, the artist behind the hit “Get Lucky” on The Colbert Report…was something that was going to happen when we made this graphic,” said Colbert on Tuesday night. Unfortunately, Daft Punk is not here.”

    “Here’s the story, and it’s a true story,” said Colbert. “You see, we booked Click and Clack over here about a month ago but there was a problem. This network is owned by Viacom, which is also the owner of MTV…Well, apparently, and this is a depply guarded secret, but Daft Punk is going to make a surprise appearance on the MTV Video Music Awards – spoiler alert. Don’t tell anybody, cause fun fact – nobody told me until two o’clock yesterday.”

    Apparently, performing on The Colbert Report prior to the VMAs would’ve breached a contractual obligation with MTV. Blah, blah, blah. So Colbert did what he could, and enlisted the help of a bunch of A-list celebrities to perform an epic dance number to the tune of Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky.” Check it out:

    As Colbert points out, he was probably Daft Punk’d. What better promotion for Daft Punk’s upcoming VMA performance, right? MTV has yet to comment on a possible Daft Punk performance, but it looks like Colbert may have spilled the beans. I’m sure it’ll be great – but I doubt it could top Colbert’s “impromptu” dance session.

  • Amazon/Viacom Deal Adds Nickelodeon, Comedy Central Shows to Prime Instant Video

    Amazon has just snatched up a bunch of new content for its Prime Instant Video streaming service – most of it in the form of kids shows from the Viacom family of networks.

    The Amazon/Viacom deal is being touted as a “multi-year, multi-national” licensing agreement and they say that it will bump up Amazon Prime’s video catalog by over 100 TV shows and over 1000 episodes.

    The content comes from networks like Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., MTV, and Comedy Central – shows like Dora the Explorer, Blue’s Clues, SpongeBob Squarepants, and more kids programming. On the adult side, Amazon Prime Instant Video members will see shows like Key & Peele, Workaholics, and Teen Mom 2 land on the service.

    Many of these titles were just recently available on Netflix, but that deal expired last week. So now, Amazon has picked up the slack.

    “Kids’ shows are one of the most watched TV genres on Prime Instant Video,” said Bill Carr, VP of Digital Video and Music for Amazon. “And this expanded deal will now bring customers the largest subscription selection of Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. TV shows online, anywhere. With programs like Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob SquarePants, Bubble Guppies and The Backyardigans there are hundreds of great shows for kids and parents to choose from. In addition, we are bringing customers popular shows from MTV and COMEDY CENTRAL like Key & Peele, Workaholics, Awkward and Teen Mom 2, with the promise of more shows from these networks in the future.”

    Not only is Amazon continuing with their original programing initiative, greenlighting 5 new shows last week, but they also just inked an expanded deal with NBCUniversal to bring more shows from NBC, USA, and SyFy to Prime Instant Video.

  • YouTube Beats Viacom For Second Time

    YouTube Beats Viacom For Second Time

    Viacom and Google (specifically YouTube) have been engaged in a legal battle for years, as Viacom accused the site of illegally hosting its property.

    Though Viacom has lost this battle in the past, the media giant refused to accept the loss, and has continued the fight.

    Google provided an update about the case on the Official YouTube blog, and it goes like this: “YouTube wins case against Viacom (again)”. In the post, Google SVP & General Counsel, Kent Walker, writes:

    Today is an important day for the Internet. For the second time, a federal court correctly rejected Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube. This is a win not just for YouTube, but for the billions of people worldwide who depend on the web to freely exchange ideas and information.

    In enacting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress effectively balanced the public interest in free expression with the rights of copyright holders. The court today reaffirmed an established judicial consensus that the DMCA protects web platforms like YouTube that work with rightsholders and take appropriate steps to remove user-generated content that rightsholders notify them is infringing.

    The growing YouTube community includes not only a billion individual users, but tens of thousands of partners who earn revenue from the platform — from independent musicians and creators to some of the world’s biggest record labels, movie studios, and news organizations. Today’s decision recognizes YouTube as a thriving and vibrant forum for all these users, creators and consumers alike. Today is an important day for the Internet.

    Google shares the official Viacom Opinion court document here.

    [Image via jm3, Flickr]

  • DirecTV Customers Not The Only Ones To Lose Viacom Programming

    As previously reported, Viacom and DirecTV have been unable to reach an agreement to keep DirecTV customers getting programming from Viacom.

    Here’s what Daniel Tosh had to say about it.

    Viacom has now cut off online streaming of some of its shows from its sites, to all viewers, so now even people that aren’t DirecTV customers no longer have convenient online access. CNN reports:

    Fans can no longer watch full episodes of shows like “SpongeBob Squarepants” and “iCarly” or “Jersey Shore” and “The Daily Show,” which is sure to further anger the 20 million DirecTV subscribers who continue to find a dark screen when they change the channel to Viacom-owned nets like Nick, MTV, Comedy Central and VH1.

    “Once again it’s viewers who suffer when media companies stall in their negotiations. But the scale of Viacom’s overreaction is unprecedented,” said John Bergmayer, a Senior Staff Attorney for the Washington-based public interest group Public Knowledge.

    “Viacom has decided to take a service away from all Internet users in its attempt to punish DirecTV,” he added. “It is apparent that Viacom puts little stock in the Internet and the online future of video if it is willing to use all Internet users as a pawn in its negotiations.”

    “We hope that Viacom and DirecTV can work out their differences quickly so that people can continue to access Viacom’s popular content lawfully,” he said.

    And that’s just it. Those who want it bad enough, will probably seek out access that isn’t so lawful.

    Some Viacom content is still available via shows websites and mobile apps, and on Netflix, and probably other similar services. In fact, The Daily Show – one of the shows pulled from online access – still has clips accessible via its Android app.

  • Daniel Tosh Hopes Viacom And DirecTV Squash Their Beef Before Next Week

    Update: Viacom has pulled shows from its sites now, so more than just DirecTV customers are affected by this.

    DirectTV customers have lost Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 14 other channels, as Viacom has dropped its networks from the provider.

    DirecTV issued a release, saying that its execs have reached out to Viacom with a new proposal, and a request to keep channels while negotiations continue, but have not heard back from the media giant. DirecTV says it had to comply with Viacom’s demand in order to avoid legal action.

    “We have been very willing to get a deal done, but Viacom is pushing DirectTV customers to pay more than a 30 percent increase, which equates to an extra $1 billion, despite the fact that the ratings for many of their main networks have plummeted and much of Viacom’s programming can be seen for free online,” said Derek Chang, DirecTV executive vice president of Content, Strategy and Development. “Viacom sent us a letter last night that outlined our obligations to remove the channels by midnight or face legal action just as they were falsely telling viewers DIRECTV was responsible. Let’s be clear, Viacom took these channels away from DirecTV viewers.”

    DirecTV has a site set up with more information about what’s going on, and says it will get the deal done.

    Comedian Daniel Tosh, who hosts Comedy Central’s Internet video show Tosh.0, and is currently also in the news for a rape joke, has been talking about the situation a little on Twitter. Before Tosh.0 aired on Comedy Central on Tuesday night, Tosh tweeted:

    He later followed up with:

  • South Park Cites Fair Use, Wins “What What (In The Butt)” Infringement Case

    According to a ruling from the 7th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, Butters is not a copyright infringer.

    The court upheld a lower court decision that ruled Viacom’s Comedy Partners were correct in their fair use defense concerning a 2008 South Park episode that lampooned a classic viral video from 2007 – Samwell’s “What What (In The Butt), which currently sits at over 47 million views.

    The lower court said that South Park’s version featuring the character Butters made “transformative” use of the original by somehow doing “the seemingly impossible — making the ‘WWITB’ video even more absurd by replacing the African-American male singer with a naive and innocent 9-year-old boy dressed in adorable outfits,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

    Brownmark Films, owners of the original What What (In The Butt) video claimed that the lower court had no right to consider a fair-use defense and throw out the case before a trial. The appeals court sided with the lower court.

    The crux of the decision rests on the fact that Brownmark cannot now oppose the claim of fair use, and even if they could they would fail because South Park’s version is a clear parody that “comments” on the original:

    This matter is simple because Brownmark, in response to SPDS’s motion, did not address fair use as applied to the WWITB videos, and instead insisted that the court could not consider the matter at a 12(b)(6) stage. Since Brownmark never opposed SPDS’s fair use argument in the dis tric t court , we conside r the argument waived.

    However, even if Brownmark were not barred from offering argument that SPDS did not engage in fair use, we agree with the district court that this is an obvious case of fair use. When a defendant raises a fair use defense claiming his or her work is a parody, a court can often decide the merits of the claim without discovery or a10 No. 11-2620
    trial. When the two works in this case are viewed side-byside, the South Park episode is clearly a parody of the original WWITB video, providing commentary on the ridiculousness of the original video and the viral nature of
    certain YouTube videos.

    One of the big things, long-term, that comes from this decision is that it affirms that it is possible to use the fair-use defense to get the case thrown out in the early stages of the suit.

    When all relevant facts are presented, the court may properly dismiss a case before discovery…

    Despite Brownmark’s assertions to the contrary, the only two pieces of evidence needed to decide the question of fair use in this case are the original version of WWITB and the episode at issue.

    Basically, all the court needed to see was the two videos side by side and they could make a decision. It was that obvious.

    I mean, take a look for yourself:

    Pretty open and shut from my point of view. If nothing else, these legal proceedings were worth it just to see What What (In The Butt) slip into the official record, abbreviated as “WWITB.”

  • Viacom, Time Warner Settle Mobile App Dispute

    Viacom and Time Warner Cable have settled their legal dispute over Time Warner’s TWC TV iOS app. Time Warner customers will begin to have access to a variety of Viacom programming both in their homes and on the TWC TV app soon, as the new programming is added during the next few weeks.

    The terms of the settlement are not known, and neither company is talking apart from the joint statement released yesterday afternoon. All either company is saying is that users of the TWC TV app will begin having access to programming from channels like VH1, Comedy Central, MTV, and others, and that both companies are pleased at the deal. Here is the joint statement the two companies issued:

    Viacom and Time Warner Cable have agreed to resolve their pending litigations. All of Viacom’s programming will now be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers for in-home viewing via internet protocol-enabled devices such as iPads and Time Warner Cable will continue to carry Viacom’s Country Music Television (CMT) programming. In reaching the settlement agreement, Time Warner Cable and Viacom were also able to resolve other unrelated business matters to their mutual satisfaction. Neither side is conceding its original legal position or will have further comment.

    Reading between the lines, it looks like both companies realized that continuing the legal battle would be both costly and time consuming, and that each stood to make considerably more money if they settled.

    The dispute started last year when Time Warner released their TWC TV app. The app allows Time Warner subscribers to watch live TV programming on their iOS device anywhere in their house (i.e., on their home wi-fi network; nowhere else). Content providers like Viacom reacted poorly to the app’s release, however. To them, the streaming app represented a new method of distribution that was not covered by their agreements with Time Warner. In short, they felt that Time Warner had the right to pipe their programming into your TV, but not into your iPad. The companies sued each other in Federal court. Viacom demanded (PDF) that Time Warner be ordered to cease its “unlicensed distribution” of Viacom’s content, while Time Warner asked (PDF) for a ruling declaring that streaming to a subscriber’s iPad was covered by existing distribution agreements.

    Interestingly, it appears that neither company actually budged on the legal question. Note the bit at the end of the statement: “Neither side is conceding its original legal position.” In other words, Viacom still thinks Time Warner doesn’t have the right to stream Viacom’s programming. The fact that Viacom has agreed to let them do it anyway raises very interesting questions about the terms of the settlement.

    At any rate, if you’re a Time Warner subscriber with an iPhone or iPad, you can get the app for free from the iOS App Store. You should be able to see programming from MTV, Comedy Central, and other Viacom properties over the next few weeks.

  • Viacom Stomps on Adam Yauch’s Grave

    After the recent death of Beastie Boy Adam Yauch, Chappelle Show co-creator Neil Brennen (he’s the one taking notes when Chappelle and his friends were hanging out) posted a video from an unaired episode of The Beastie Boys performing “The New Style”.

    Just a few minutes after it gained some media coverage from UpRoxx and IFC, Viacom inexplicably took the video down, citing copyright infringement.

    (image)

    This is where I would have posted the video, allowing you to reminisce on all the great contributions Yauch has made to the music world and to reflect on how he changed your youth for the better.

    Like most, I thought this was a nice remembrance for a musician that helped bring hip-hop into the mainstream, and influenced so many of my generation. Viacom, on the other hand, is worried about sales of its “Lost Episodes” DVD, which sells for $9.49 on Amazon. Accounting for all the people that immediately thought they needed to buy that DVD, to see one of Yauch’s on air performances, Viacom would have made about $20. Instead, anyone who sees this article or notices the video was removed from other sites that tried to cover it, should make a conscience effort to never purchase it.

    The episodes were “lost” when Chappelle decided not to return for a 3rd season of the show, citing creative differences and feeling that his show was becoming too commercial. Chappelle has said that he never wanted the episodes to be released, saying he felt like he was being laugh at instead of with. Another instance where Viacom ignored the wishes of the artist for commercial gain.

    Rest in Peace, MCA. Hopefully Viacom will be alone in trying to capitalize on your death.

  • Sergey Brin: Hollywood Is Shooting Itself in the Foot

    Google co-founder Sergey Brin spoke with The Guardian over the weekend and offered up his opinions on a series of topics related to the current state of affairs with the internet and the technology world as a whole. Unsurprisingly, Brin spoke of his company as if it was unfairly besieged by competitors and government alike.

    Brin ominously told the Guardian that there are “very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world.” Brin cited several issues that, while applicable to the average internet user’s access to the web, are issues near and dear to the heart of Google.

    He compared previously proposed bills like SOPA and PIPA to internet restrictions enacted in more censorship-ready counties like Iran and China. Brin also opined that he didn’t expect that the government siding so heavily with the entertainment industry would actually curb any kind of illegal file-sharing of copyrighted materials, saying that people will always find a way to circumvent the laws in order to download pirated content. Instead of blaming the internet user, Brin said that it was the fault of the entertainment industry for creating an environment that encouraged privacy in the first place. “When you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy,” he said.

    The issue of online piracy was recently renewed once again earlier this month as a court order Google’s online video site, YouTube, to defend itself in a new lawsuit filed by Viacom, who has charged that the website is guilty of perpetuating the access to pirated material to millions of internet users.

    Brin also didn’t hold back his criticism of two his company’s chief rivals, Facebook and Apple, saying that their notorious walled gardens are “restrictive” and that such practices stifle imagination and invention. Given that Facebook is said to be working on its own search engine these days, Brin said that the site would actually have prohibited him and Google’s other co-founder, Larry Page, from even creating Google had Facebook dominated the internet when they created the search engine. “You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive,” Brin said. “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”

    It’s peculiar how everything Brin is saying about his rivals could very well be applied to his own company, as well. Google has certainly enjoyed a long run of online dominance over the past several years and continues to command a majority of all search traffic to this day.

    The Guardian didn’t let him off the hook so easily, asking him to comment on Google’s recent user privacy overhaul that had much of the internet in an uproar. Addressing the concerns of how Google may turn over user information to the government or law enforcement, he said that Google was periodically required to turn over such data to the authorities. Worse, sometimes Google is “prevented by legal restrictions” from even informing a Google user that their information has been handed over to the government.

    So after laying out all of the disparaging words about government intrusion into the internet and competing against other companies, is Brin having a pot-kettle-black moment here?

  • YouTube Ordered to Answer to Viacom Suit

    Google-owned YouTube has been newly ordered to defend a lawsuit filed by Viacom Inc. over copyright violations. Viacom has alleged that YouTube had knowingly hosted some of their content without authorization, including clips from “the Colbert Report.”

    Here is the new trailer for the Viacom-owned Paramount Pictures’ G.I. Joe: Retaliation, “legally” on YouTube:

    A lower court had initially sided with YouTube on the matter, but the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed the ruling today, ordering Google to defend the case. In a 39-page decision, a two-judge panel wrote, “A reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website.”

    Viacom first sued YouTube in 2007, seeking $1 billion in damages, alleging that the website’s users were posting thousands of Viacom’s clips, included those from “The Daily Show,” “South Park,” and from various movies from its Paramount Pictures branch. In 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton found YouTube to be protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because it removed the content from its site, after Viacom complained. Viacom countered, claiming that YouTube was aware of the copyright infringement when it displayed the videos in the first place.

    The case is Viacom International v. YouTube, 10-03270, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower- court case is Viacom v. YouTube, 07-2103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

    It would seem that Viacom still doesn’t understand or care about the sheer amount of video content that’s uploaded to YouTube daily – Last year it was reported that 2 days worth of video is uploaded to Youtube’s servers every minute. How would it be possible to keep up with millions of users just constantly posting whatever? And surely Viacom has no problem with the site “officially” posting it’s marketing content.

  • Amazon, Viacom Partner To Increase Amazon Prime Instant Video Selection

    As a result of a digital licensing agreement with Viacom, Amazon announced today that Amazon Prime members will now be able to instantly stream television shows from MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, TV Land, Spike, VH1, BET, CMT and Logo. The addition of these selections bring the total number of Prime Instant Videos to more than 15,000.

    In a statement from Amazon, Brad Beale, director of video content acquisition for Amazon, said, “Over the last year we have received fantastic customer feedback about Prime Instant Video. We are constantly working to improve the service by adding the shows that our customers enjoy the most. This deal with Viacom brings Prime customers and Kindle Fire users thousands of comedies, kids’ shows, reality TV and much more from some of the best cable networks available. We now offer more than 15,000 movies and TV shows in Prime Instant Videos and are working hard to add even more great content.”

    Members of Amazon Prime will be able to enjoy Viacom’s offerings, which include such cultural fascinations like Jersey Shore and SpongeBob SquarePants, on a number of devices, including Amazon’s jewel, the Kindle Fire.

    Amazingly, the statement released from Amazon did not recommend any suitable prophylactics required to safely stream Jersey Shore to your Kindle Fire.

  • Video Game Trailer Offers Exercise in Upcoming SOPA Futility

    Apparently, if you want to promote your video game, or members of the company that developed it through the use of online video hubs like YouTube, you had better make sure Viacom didn’t, at any point, put their hands on it, otherwise, you’re video stands a good chance of being pulled.

    Just ask video game developers Naughty Dog, who posted the trailer to their upcoming game, The Last of Us, on YouTube. Shortly after it appeared, it was taken down thanks to a copyright claim from Viacom. Their issue? Even though they didn’t make, produce, advise or star in The Last of Us, because the trailer in question was first shown during the VGA Awards show, which aired on Viacom-owned SpikeTV, Viacom’s claim was temporarily upheld.

    Needless to say, such an overzealous application of copyright law, Viacom’s move got the Internet in a tizzy, including Reddit and Kotaku. According to the latter publication, the trailer, which was posted on Naughty Dog’s official YouTube page for the game in question, has been restored. The difference between the pulled on and the live version? The currently-live version mentions the VGAs in its title.

    The trailer in question:


    If you’ll notice, the title of the video is, “The Last of Us VGA 2011 Trailer,” which indicates as long as Viacom got a mention, they were OK with the video being posted. Before the attribution was given, this is what potential viewers saw when they tried to play the video:

    Viacom Claim

    And some people wonder why a large portion of the Internet is against SOPA. What, exactly, did Viacom gain from their strong-arming of The Last of Us trailer? Did they get to collect additional ad revenue? It’s doubtful because there are no advertisements appearing with the video. Furthermore, the revenue from the telecast has already been counted, so what motivated Viacom to act in such a petulant manner?

    Making this situation even worse, SOPA hasn’t even been made into a law yet, so the fear is, scenarios where Viacom overvalues their position as a video game distributor will become commonplace if SOPA survives the legislative process.

    Viacom did not make the video game, nor did they create the trailer, but because it was first shown on one of the many channels they own, they have a legal claim to content from an intellectual property that isn’t even theirs? And this is something that will improve once SOPA passes? Forgive me for scoffing at such a ridiculous idea.

    In the future, perhaps Sony, Naughty Dog’s parent company, should no longer show first-run trailers on any Viacom-owned channels, even if it is for a video game award show. If Viacom is going to act obstinate about IP that doesn’t even belong to them, they should be blocked from receiving such exclusive content. Fair’s fair.

  • Viacom’s Ridiculous SOPA Support Pitch Video

    That’s Professor Chaos from South Park which appears on Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom. The reason the image is leading this post is because it’s Viacom’s intellectual property, vicariously, anyway, and after watching their propaganda video supporting SOPA, I’m hoping you have the same reaction as the Professor does.

    First, the laughable video:


    Oddly enough, Viacom didn’t post this on YouTube. It was apparently ripped from this page — notice the “anti-piracy” in the URL — and that’s another reason I’m using it: To show how ridiculous their position really is. Notice they haven’t requested that YouTube pull this format of their sob story, even though it’s been up on YouTube for two days. Good thing it wasn’t a 30-second clip of South Park, otherwise it would’ve been gone already.

    Apparently, the good people who made this video aren’t trying to monetize it, so it’s OK for YouTube to have it. Ah, hypocrisy at its finest.

    As for the video itself, as TechDirt so eloquently pointed out, it’s essentially a “support SOPA or Spongebob dies” approach, and it stinks of hyperbole and a “woe is our company because there’s no SOPA to protect it” approach. Don’t forget about the “we need more of your money, therefore, SOPA is right” approach, either, because it’s definitely available in the video.

    It should be noted that Viacom’s view on piracy is not in dispute here. If you get caught downloading a movie you haven’t paid for, you should have to pay the consequences. The problem is, SOPA is not the way to go about it because it gives entirely too much power to the entertainment industry, which has been the major sticking point against SOPA all along.

    Ironically enough, Viacom’s quarterly financial report has also been released, and after watching their sob story video, you’d think the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yeah, about that. A quick look at the document’s title reveals a much different outlook than the one the video presents:

    VIACOM REPORTS DOUBLE-DIGIT GROWTH FOR FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL-YEAR FISCAL 2011

    But, but… didn’t the video essentially plead for people to keep consuming Viacom’s products in such a manner that the money keeps on flowing in, saving the entire Viacom staff from certain doom? So is this more hypocrisy or just an outright lie? Furthermore, when does Viacom get held to the fire for refusing to adapt the technology available? Or, as TechDirt put it:

    Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that’s the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn’t do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.

    It should be noted that full episodes of VH1’s amazing lineup of reality programs are available at the VH1 website, but you wouldn’t know that if you visited Viacom. If you want to actually combat episodic piracy, why not go out of your way to promote the fact these very same episodes are available for free on the website of a property you own instead of making videos that further turn public opinion against you?

    Nowhere on Viacom’s site is that knowledge gained. In fact, it was Google that let me know these episodes are available, but yet, it’s a lack of SOPA that causes people to download Viacom’s IP and not a lack promotion? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

  • YouTube And Viacom: Viacom Refuses to Accept the Loss

    Apparently, one of the main rules of corporate level lawsuits is if you at first don’t get your way, try, try again until you find a judge that agrees with your constant complaining. Just ask Viacom and YouTube, or, well, just Viacom if you want to be specific, because YouTube is not the catalyst for bringing this story back into the public’s eye.

    In case you’ve forgotten, when YouTube started its skyrocket ascent, Viacom was displeased with their content being available — for free — on YouTube’s servers, and so, they filed suit to have their content removed. That is an understandable, if not archaic position, one that becomes even more obtuse when you consider YouTube does indeed have a sufficient advertising model in place.

    Because, let’s face it, Viacom’s position is all about getting paid when people view their content.

    Digression aside, in 2010, a judge ruled that YouTube was given “safe harbor” protection, which essentially means as long as YouTube removes the offending content, it’s not YouTube’s fault if one of their users is responsible for uploading it, which makes perfect sense in the rational world. Unfortunately, that’s not the world Viacom resides in. No, being a corporate juggernaut, Viacom’s concern is for one thing and one thing only: profit.

    Because of that, Viacom is working their asses off in an effort to find an appeals judge who agrees with them, and so, here we go again with the appeals process, one that says, “please, judge, make YouTube liable so we can have some of their money.” A snippet from PaidContent.org details Viacom’s position quite nicely:

    What do Viacom and the other plaintiffs want?

    Viacom wants the panel to declare that the judge made an error when he stated that the safe harbor protection applies to YouTube. According to lawyers from Jenner & Block, YouTube forfeited its right to the safe harbor because it did not make an honest effort to stop the clips from being uploaded and instead focused on growing its online video business at the expense of content owners.

    Viacom is also hoping that the influential Second Circuit will provide a precedent that curtails the scope of safe harbors in general. It believes that the 1998 law has become too expansive…

    Apparently, Viacom doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about the amount of content that’s uploaded to YouTube on daily basis. Or maybe Viacom thinks YouTube should be capable of seamlessly inspecting every aspect of the 48 hours worth of video that’s uploaded on a minute-by-minute basis, instead of reacting to it after a complaint has been filed.

    Or, maybe Viacom just wants some of that YouTube money.

    It’s funny, YouTube is a perfectly acceptable platform for Viacom to take advantage of when they release movies trailers, nor do they seem to mind when Internet properties like ClevverTV exploit Viacom properties for pageviews, like so:


    The reason I used both of those trailers is because they both belong to Paramount Pictures, one of Viacom’s stronger properties. However, both of these trailers are featured on ClevverTV’s YouTube channel, meaning they get the page views and not Viacom or Paramount.

    For what it’s worth, Clevver is a property that aims to keep teens hip and informed, and unless they are owned by Viacom, a distinct possibility, but it’s not indicated anywhere on Clevver’s about pages, Viacom’s stance appears hypocritical.

    Apparently, it’s fine to promote their products in the form of trailers and television previews, just don’t upload video from properties Viacom makes money from. It’s also OK if the Clevver brand establishes its popularity via Viacom-owned trailers and other promotional content, however, if they upload a non-promotional clip from MTV’s Teen Wolf, then Viacom wants YouTube to be liable.

    Does that make even make sense? To Viacom’s legal team, apparently so. Is it YouTube’s fault if these videos exist, even though no one has apparently filed the appropriate infringement notice?


    Perhaps Viacom should be more concerned with policing their properties instead of relying on others to do it for them. If they filed the proper infringement paperwork, it’s safe to say YouTube would remove these offending clips, but instead of doing that, Viacom is once again going the litigious route.

  • YouTube – Viacom Brief Filed

    YouTube – Viacom Brief Filed

    In case anyone was wondering, YouTube hasn’t decided to wave a white flag with respect to the legal battle that Viacom started in early 2007.  Indeed, lawyers representing the site have filed a new 94-page document defending YouTube’s approach to handling copyright infringement.

    One quick reminder: YouTube already won this case once, with a court deciding last year that the site’s protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Fresh papers are circulating only because Viacom decided to appeal the decision.

    Otherwise, we’d just like to let everyone know that we’re not going to quote too extensively from the long, long “brief.”  Both YouTube and Viacom seem to be past introducing much in the way of new evidence and/or new arguments at this point.

    So here’s the simple conclusion at the end of the document: “YouTube, which has pioneered efforts to protect copyright while maintaining an open environment for creative, political, and personal expression, is exactly the kind of service that Section 512(c) was enacted to protect.  The district court’s judgment should be affirmed.”

    Viacom-v-YouTube-Google-2d-Cir-brief-

    Viacom responded by telling Eriq Gardner (who was the first person to publish Google’s legal brief), “Under the DMCA, content owners and systems operators share responsibility for the protection of copyrighted content online.  It was never intended to absolve companies like YouTube from liability for building a business by deliberately infringing others’ creative works.  We look forward to the review of this case by the court of appeals, and are confident that it will vindicate the rights of content creators.”

  • Stewart, Colbert Return To Hulu

    Stewart, Colbert Return To Hulu

    Eleven months ago, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were pulled from Hulu.  Fans complained in response.  Now the shows are back thanks to a wider deal between Hulu and Viacom, and Hulu’s CEO, Jason Kilar, has also revealed some interesting stats and opinions regarding the site’s performance and the future of television.

    Let’s start with a quick rundown of the content deal.  Episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report will once again become available on Hulu the day after they air.  Meanwhile, Hulu Plus users will get access to episodes of Hot in Cleveland, Jersey Shore, and Tosh.0 21 days after they air, along with 2,000 episodes of older shows like Chappelle’s Show, The Hills, and Reno 911.

    Rumors indicate Hulu will pay Viacom at least $40 million for all this, although no financial details were disclosed.

    As for what Kilar had to say, he indicated that Hulu Plus has been successful, writing in an official blog post, "Our subscriber count will pass 1 million this year, to our knowledge the fastest start of any online video subscription service.  In the fall, we expect Hulu Plus as a business will have a revenue run rate north of $200 million."

    Then Kilar addressed the subject of Hulu versus traditional TV.  He wrote, "Based on metrics from Nielsen/IAG, Hulu’s video advertising service is roughly 2x as effective as traditional TV video advertising services."

    So, tackling the idea of having to pay for content (and perhaps angering network execs), Kilar concluded, "Our conviction remains that if we respect the customer and innovate effectively, we can pay content owners more from the ad side of the business than anyone else’s ad service can do (be that live/linear consumption or DVR viewing)."

  • Viacom-YouTube Appeal Set To Proceed

    Viacom-YouTube Appeal Set To Proceed

    More than four months after YouTube won a lawsuit filed by Viacom – and just one day after Google announced several new ways in which it’ll try to aid copyright owners – it look like the legal fight is about to start again.  Viacom is reportedly ready to move forward with its appeal.

    Sam Schechner wrote this morning, "The New York-based owner of MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures is expected as early as Friday to file its appeal of the June decision with the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  To add firepower to its case, Viacom has brought in former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson to argue."

    This is almost sure to get messy.  During the first go-round, lots of documents surfaced that made both sides look bad.  A few more may have been discovered by now, and in any event, both sides are bound to make every effort to promote their stance.

    A Google representative already stated, "We regret that Viacom continues to drag out this case.  The court here, like every other court to have considered the issue, correctly ruled that the law protects online services like YouTube, which remove content when notified by the copyright holder that it is unauthorized.  We will strongly defend the court’s decision on appeal."

    Regardless of how this plays out, though, we’ll probably hear still more about the YouTube-Viacom conflict at a later date due to yet another appeal.

    One interesting financial note: Google spent $100 million defending itself the first time around.