>:( Viacom has been removing tons of fanvids off Youtube, because they cannot come to an agreement with Google. This means no MTV music videos, no clips of MTV shows. Basically, nothing that Viacom has ever created. I understand that there are copyright issues, but I am sure that anyone can enjoy the free advertisement. I know that I have been exposed to far more tv shows, movies, music, and product placement since I have surfed Youtube. And its fun. Viacom needs to get a clue. Pretty soon youtube will be going to the dogs. Thos greedy a$$holes.

I know what you mean. It sucks when i click on a music video i saved in my favorites only to get the red message of doom. what crap. They ruined  alot of tv channels and now they are ruining youtube. 

They should really come to agreement, on something.

Corporate greed strikes again.

Viacom ruins everything it touches. It's only a matter of time before Spike TV and Comedy Central are down the toilet too.

I remember this happened once a few months ago. Alot of music videos and TV clips were forcibly taken down, then people slowly started re-uploading them again. Time will tell if it lasts this time.

I agree, Viacom is greedy and this sucks, but I can't say I'm surprised. I'm just glad I audiotaped some of it before it was gone (it's old-school and imperfect, but better than nothing, lol). ;)

  They took down my "Captain Cosmic" clips, man..!  Any NorCal mofos here older than thirty..?

  Marty, audiotaped..? 

 

I know.  I can't catch American Idol clips like I did last year.  A lot of tv show clips I can't even watch like the new SNL stuff.  >:( 

   They took down my "Captain Cosmic" clips, man..!  Any NorCal mofos here older than thirty..?

   Marty, audiotaped..?  

  


Yeah, I have a boombox hooked up to the computer as its "speakers" (through the Auxillery/Line Input).

Yeah, I have a boombox hooked up to the computer as its "speakers" (through the Auxillery/Line Input).


  Gotcha.  So you'll just tape the audio and skip the video...

  Yep.  Old school, indeed... 

I wonder if Viacom is doing this to other similar sites like Daily Motion and ifilm?

I wonder if Viacom is doing this to other similar sites like Daily Motion and ifilm?


  I was wondering the same thing...

  Before YouTube, we had the dedicated nostalgia sites like BastardVision, RetroJunk.  I'm assuming the owners of those sites were not paying royalties to copyright holders.  Would seem cost prohibitive for someone who runs a free site...

  Sites like TV-Party (a high traffic site) charge a small fee to access the files stored on the site.  Possibly to cover licensing..?



 

>:( Viacom has been removing tons of fanvids off Youtube, because they cannot come to an agreement with Google. This means no MTV music videos, no clips of MTV shows. Basically, nothing that Viacom has ever created. I understand that there are copyright issues, but I am sure that anyone can enjoy the free advertisement. I know that I have been exposed to far more tv shows, movies, music, and product placement since I have surfed Youtube. And its fun. Viacom needs to get a clue. Pretty soon youtube will be going to the dogs. Thos greedy a$$holes.


good for viacom. what google is doing is infringement of copyright law. good for them. it's about time youtube got kicked in the face.

You can google it, but there's a software you can download that allows you to rip videos off YouTube and save them to your hard drive.  That way you can keep the videos you really like before there's a chance they'll get yanked.

^ You don't actually need software to download videos from YouTube, but if you want to be able to play them on Windows Media Player, then you need the software.  lol

I haven't visited YouTube in over two weeks now, since they deleted almost half of the videos I had saved to my favorites. I knew this day was coming as soon as I heard google had purchased the site for a billion dollars... money wasted if the site continues to go down hill fast...  >:(

People have started re-uploading music videos that had previously been taken down, but who knows if it'll last or not. It's just a matter of time before Viacom "finds" them again. I'd say to utilize it now while you've got it.

P.S. I guess now wouldn't be a good time to upload the circa 1991 VH1 footage I have left on tape. ;)

I've been saving youtube videos  using keepvid.com

How do you use "keepvid.com."  I should check it out.

Can Viacom come after you legally if you repost a deleted video?

Let the irony.... begin!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/business/media/20cnd-viacom.html?hp

Let the irony.... begin!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/business/media/20cnd-viacom.html?hp


I have mixed feelings about the Joost compromise, although it's good news that Viacom can at least come to a compromise.

It'll be nice to watch full episodes of shows, but my hopes were shot down a little when I read that users couldn't upload any of their own footage. Persoanlly, I think YouTube's main appeal is the older things you're very unlikely to run across again unless (1) you have a tape of it yourself from back in the day, or (2), you build an actual time machine.

I'm not strictly talking about '80s music videos (although that is one of the things in mind), there's also old SNL/Mad TV skits, commercials, talk show clips, Unsolved Mysteries episodes and all that.

Viacom friggin' sucks.  I've uploaded a bunch of music videos to YouTube, but only ones that didn't already exist on there, and in the last few days, two have been removed due to copyright infringement, courtest of e-mails via Viacom >:(

What's the point of YouTube if Viacom is deleting all the videos ???

Viacom is only deleting videos that come from one of their subsidiaries like MTV.

I think there ought to be a "fair use" type of clause for videos the networks don't show anymore. 

Take an '80s band like, say, A Flock Of Seagulls.  VH1 might show the video for "I Ran" once in a twelve-month period.  They might show the videos for "Space Age Love Song," "Wishing (If I Had a Photograph of You)," and "The More You Live, The More You Love" maybe once in a 24 to 36 month period.  I have never seen the videos for "Nightmares," "(It's Not Me) Talking," "Transfer Affection," or any live footage of AFOS on VH1.  Thus, fans like me turned to Youtube because we want to see the videos VH1 isn't showing.  We are not downloading AFOS videos from Youtube instead of watching them on VH1. 

Money:  If all the AFOS videos are sitting in the VH1 archives, the band isn't earning royalties anyway.  If anything, the clips made available on Youtube might rekindle the interest of old fans and recruit new fans.  Perhaps AFOS will sell units they might not otherwise sell were it not for Youtube.

AFOS is no longer commercially viable.  Even if the original band reunited, they'd get no contract offers from SONY/BMG/Universal or whatever. 

A band such as Depeche Mode and Mute Records might have a stronger argument for keeping their videos off Youtube.  DM's records are being reissued with the videos appended, and they are selling.  Thus, there's a tenable commercial conflict of interest.

If I had my druthers, I'd say f&@k your copyrights, hands off Youtube.

Anyway...

I think there ought to be a "fair use" type of clause for videos the networks don't show anymore. 

Take an '80s band like, say, A Flock Of Seagulls.  VH1 might show the video for "I Ran" once in a twelve-month period.  They might show the videos for "Space Age Love Song," "Wishing (If I Had a Photograph of You)," and "The More You Live, The More You Love" maybe once in a 24 to 36 month period.  I have never seen the videos for "Nightmares," "(It's Not Me) Talking," "Transfer Affection," or any live footage of AFOS on VH1.  Thus, fans like me turned to Youtube because we want to see the videos VH1 isn't showing.  We are not downloading AFOS videos from Youtube instead of watching them on VH1. 

Money:  If all the AFOS videos are sitting in the VH1 archives, the band isn't earning royalties anyway.  If anything, the clips made available on Youtube might rekindle the interest of old fans and recruit new fans.  Perhaps AFOS will sell units they might not otherwise sell were it not for Youtube.

AFOS is no longer commercially viable.  Even if the original band reunited, they'd get no contract offers from SONY/BMG/Universal or whatever. 

A band such as Depeche Mode and Mute Records might have a stronger argument for keeping their videos off Youtube.  DM's records are being reissued with the videos appended, and they are selling.  Thus, there's a tenable commercial conflict of interest.

If I had my druthers, I'd say f&@k your copyrights, hands off Youtube.

Anyway...


This is a good point, I was thinking the same thing myself and I entirely agree.

I could see "popular" newer videos, and/or those by commercially viable bands that could still sell or generate interest other ways not being allowed. This could be from current artists, or even by, say Michael Jackson. Despite him not being relevant in a long time musically, is enough of a big star that people are still interested in "Thriller" or "Billie Jean".

It's the rarer stuff you're not likely to see elsewhere that I'd really like to see protected. I've recorded lots of rarer '80s/early '90s songs I'd never heard before (or not in ages, lol) off there.

And, if you check the Comments section (as I often do) you'll see LOTS of praise almost all of the time, from people of all ages, so yeah it definitely brings in new fans. Just as MTV or VH1 did back in the day by having them on TV.

This is a good point, I was thinking the same thing myself and I entirely agree.

I could see "popular" newer videos, and/or those by commercially viable bands that could still sell or generate interest other ways not being allowed. This could be from current artists, or even by, say Michael Jackson. Despite him not being relevant in a long time musically, is enough of a big star that people are still interested in "Thriller" or "Billie Jean".

It's the rarer stuff you're not likely to see elsewhere that I'd really like to see protected. I've recorded lots of rarer '80s/early '90s songs I'd never heard before (or not in ages, lol) off there.

And, if you check the Comments section (as I often do) you'll see LOTS of praise almost all of the time, from people of all ages, so yeah it definitely brings in new fans. Just as MTV or VH1 did back in the day by having them on TV.

You couldn't buy most of those videos even if you wanted to.  I mean, you could buy bootlegs online, but not legit.  It's not like what Napster was doing.  Some of the more popular artists will reissue their albums with the videos appended, as Depeche Mode has done, because the technology to do so is easy.

However, I often broadcast music on my radio program without permission of the artist or the label.  This is technically illegal, but nobody cares.  You could say, "Well, a university radio station has very limited range."  But it's the same principle.  Besides, we webcast.  You could listen in Timbuktu.  If you look at the fine print on any commercial CD, it says broadcast without permission is prohibited.  Granted, either the label or the artist sends me most of the music, which gives me a broadcast license.  However, many years ago I did an '80s show.  Much of the music was from my own collection, so I was committing a "sharing use violation," or whatever it says when Youtube deletes a video. 

What it boils down to is I don't think Youtube--unlike Napster-type services--actually hurts the artist--even the multiplatinum selling artists.  It's just that greedy corporations such Viacom want their monopoly on what can and can't go on!  And if fewer people are watching MTV/VH1 maybe it's because they suuuuuuuck!!!

I never even heard of half the songs I found on YouTube prior to it's existance and inclusion.  I mean, the videos appearing on there aren't like free downloads. . .ViaCom is not the most intelligent company in the shed. . .I bought at least 6 different items as a direct result of YouTube videos that are no removed because of Viacom