“MTV Networks owners Viacom said it ‘welcomes’ the opportunity to license its content to Apple after the iPod maker signed a deal with top online video distributor YouTube,” Reuters reports.
“Viacom sued Google Inc.’s YouTube in March for $1 billion charging it with ‘massive intentional copyright infringement’ after finding hundreds of thousands of Viacom-owned videos uploaded to the service without its permission,” Reuters reports.
“‘We’re always vigilant about protecting our copyrights,’ a Viacom spokesman said. ‘But we would welcome the opportunity to license our content to Apple as we do with all distributors,’ he said. Viacom separately has a deal to sell some of its shows on Apple Inc.’s iTunes digital media store,” Reuters reports.
Full article here.
Translation: We’re going to sue you when you implement this unless you pay us.
Yeah, definitely sound like a shot across the bow.
Viacom misses the boat on this, though.
I’m not going to dispute Viacom’s right to protect their intellectual property rights. That’s something they’re entitled to.
But I think they miss out on the fact that YouTube is really not a threat to their sales. As a matter of fact, those low-res videos have prompted me to buy things (such as DVD’s of old Saturday Night Live) because I watch the crappy YouTube version and then want the ‘real’ thing later on.
Now, if YouTube gets to the point where it’s putting high-resolution versions of this copyrighted content on there, that’s a different story. For now, Viacom just looks like a whiny (and rather dense) brat.
And as for Apple having to pay money, that’s hogwash. Something any computer on earth can access for free shouldn’t cost one particular company more. If you’re going to sue Apple, then sue Sony, Gateway, Dell, HP, etc.
It seems to me this is between Google and Viacom to sort out. Apple’s got nothing but a better way to view the material. It’s like suing LG because they make a better DVD player to watch pirated discs on. Just dumb.
@ MidWest Mac: You’ve hit the head on the nail! pirated material sitting on a companies server is that companies responsibilty. If YouTubes material was going to be stored on Apple TV servers (which of course don’t exist!) then it would have been logical to ask for a licence fee.
Greedy Hearts & Minds!!!!
No, It’s not about a lawsuit but rather about getting that content out in a better interface: think Video Podcasting. It’s the same as what I said in the thread about Apple TV as a catalyst for the company.
I was floored when I subscribed to my first *video* podcast to watch through my Apple TV and thought about the potential for Apple to partner and offer an abundance of third party content. This stuff gets updated in the background like any regular audio podcast, only it can be HD video if you have enough space on your hard drive. And not just the usual suspects (network TV and movie studios) but also alternative and independent media sources.
Try it today and check out the washingtonpost.com HD video podcast and see what I’m talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/hd_podcast.xml
Viacom “gets it” and the potential for Apple as a media conglomerator with its innocuous new set-top box is HUGE.
double dipping at its’ best
If you read the articles carefully about the Apple/YouTube announcement, you will understand that the content is being re-encoded into H.264 for the Apple TV, which is why it will become available gradually starting in mid-June. Basically, the YouTube plug-in for Apple TV will go to a special YouTube “portal” where this newly encoded material will reside. From the Apple website:
“Search. Watch. Repeat.
Coming in June, you can watch YouTube videos in a whole new way — on the big screen. Enjoy thousands of free videos, including the top featured, most viewed, and top rated. New content will be added every day and the entire YouTube catalog will be available by the fall, so there’ll always be something cool to see.”
You think they will re-encode copyright infringing material? If anything, the partnership with Apple gives YouTube the opportunity to sort through and clear out all the copyrighted stuff from their regular servers as well.
Yeah, definitely sound like a shot across the bow.
–
Uh, “We’d love to lisence some of our shit to you..”
“….er.. It appears we are already lisencing some of our shit to you.. nevermind… “
Dumbasses
@crabapple
Actually, I believe that it is still unclear under DCMCA how great the liability is even if it is on their servers. This is the point of law tht will be tested in the suit between Viacom and YouTube.
It really will come down to the precedent set as these cases are ruled on in court.
IPTV for Apple TV is coming. Channels al-a-carte is the key, and Jobs knows this.
ATT is desperate to get back into the TV delivery they gave up years ago to Comcast. Apple TV and IPTV with ATT’s backbone is a viable solution for both ATT and Apple.
Want ESPN, FOX News, Weather Channel, Discovery, TNT, etc… Not a problem. Buy them ala-carte for $2.99 a month, or purchase them $4.99 a month delivered in HD quality.
Miss some shows? Download them via iTunes, it is that simple. Apple could even go so far as to know which shows are on which channels. So if you have subscribed to say TNT and missed one of their original TV series shows, you could download that show – for free – from the iTunes store, as TNT already have the $$$ you paid them for that month worth of shows.
The possibilities are endless, and most powerful of course.
NOTE:
Apple tried to get more studio’s to pony up with movie sales and rentals, to create a rapid buy of Apple TV boxes. Instead, movie companies have not budged en mass.
Apple is moving foward another way, delivering more content from TV, YouTube, etc… seeding more Apple TV boxes to the market. More Apple TV’s puts more pressure on movie houses to pony up with content. If not, users will find other means to fill up their viewing time, and Apple is sure to give them this venue.
Count on a few more studio’s jumping onboard iTunes this fall, after Apple has announced a few million Apple TV’s have sold.
“content is being re-encoded into H.264 for the Apple’
Maybe, but Steve job, just yesterday, admitted that the quality of YouTube content is dependent on the submitters. You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. Steve is banking on these developments to spur more sales of hi-def camcorders, iMovie- and Final Cut Express-equipped Macs for amature moviemakers to improve content. TV is another Apple Trojan Horse to sell more computing products. I love it.
I too think this sounds stupid… umm… if Viacom is already selling content via iTunes, then don’t they realize that I can watch my Viacom content from iTunes ON my TV… Do they not realize how this works? WTF are they talking about when they talk about licensing their material for TV? They already have…
Hmmm..,
Great Hobby!
@edgy,
Its just pure greed. These people, like the music execs, have no idea how to do new business so they try to sue everyone to keep their original stuff from being seen. And the purpose is just greed. If the courts said, “OK, you can require vids to be pulled but NO MONEY, EVER.!!! I am sure Viacom would be much more agreeable to letting the items be shown.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Actually , I would like to see a result against Google but with zero dollar amount and that Google / You tube would have to remove any video that Viacom can show pirates their stuff.
So, Viacom would have the burden of screening every Youtube and for those that it can prove the material is copywrited, YouTube would delete the video. The end result is that NO ONE would see any Viacom material on Youtube.
Everyone else gets free advertising except Viacom. Sounds like a plan to me. LOL