Viacom removing U2 music videos from youtube

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

u2boy_nl

The Fly
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
231
Location
Drenthe, The Netherlands
Ok so, I've got a list of music videos on my site (http://www.u2boy.nl/u2/u2_music_videos.php)
and a about a quarter of them have been removed the past couple of days, all with the following message:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.

If you've been following the news you'll know that Viacom wants 100.000 videos offline (http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3657771)

But how on earth are viacom and u2 connected?!

Since when does viacom own the copyright on U2 videos?

I'm amazed by this because Universal has struck a deal with youtube: http://news.com.com/YouTube+cuts+three+content+deals/2100-1030_3-6123914.html

Universal has even started posting U2 videos on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=universalmusicgroup

And now viacom is removing them?!

Can anyone explain this to me?
 
Last edited:
Depends on where those videos came from. Viacom Inc. owns the cable networks MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and the Paramount Pictures movie studio. Viacom's MTV Networks division reached a licensing deal last year with Google that allows the search company's video service (YouTube) to use clips from MTV and its sibling networks under a revenue-sharing agreement. This makes it sound like any videos of U2 taken from MTV or VH-1 should still be allowed on YouTube, but maybe not. I read that a lot of videos were purged that should have been allowed to remain- maybe this is happening with U2 videos as well.
 
Ok, i'm no expert on copyright...

When MTV broadcasts a U2 video does MTV get copyright on that video?

Surely the copyright remains with U2/Universal?

??
 
I would rekon that if MTV played a u2 video they would pay a royalty to U2s publishing company, which i thought was Blue mountain music. Fek knows where viacom comes into matters.
 
I don't think the problem is copyright infringement in this case. Viacom is not being compensated for content being uploaded from their channels to Youtube. So when someone uploads a U2 video that was taped off of MTV or VH-1, Viacom is not receiving credit or money for their content being used. I know I've watched several U2 videos where the TRL, MTV or VH-1 logos are clearly seen during the videos. That is what they are arguing about, I believe- programming taken from their channels is being uploaded and shown without any compensation in return. What I'm not clear on is why this is a problem if MTV networks had a deal worked out with Google/YouTube for revenue-sharing. Maybe Google isn't paying out like they're supposed to?
 
Okay, that makes sense.

As long as I can watch Carl Lewis's National Anthem, I'm cool.
 
The best part of U2 on Youtube is the bootleg capabilities, not the music videos, so I don't think this is a big deal.
 
Yeah, you get the video from MTV, you answer to Viacom.

You get it off a U2 DVD, you answer to Universal.

If U2 don't want their videos on YouTube at all, you'll answer to Principle regardless of where you got it from.

I don't really see the problem with it, as I believe those who own the content have the right to choose where and when it is available and under what circumstances, but I do think they are silly if they are punishing the consumer. To win, they can't fight it, they need to provide a better service.
 
u2boy_nl said:
Ok so, I've got a list of music videos on my site (http://www.u2boy.nl/u2/u2_music_videos.php)
and a about a quarter of them have been removed the past couple of days, all with the following message:



If you've been following the news you'll know that Viacom wants 100.000 videos offline (http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3657771)

But how on earth are viacom and u2 connected?!

Since when does viacom own the copyright on U2 videos?

I'm amazed by this because Universal has struck a deal with youtube: http://news.com.com/YouTube+cuts+three+content+deals/2100-1030_3-6123914.html

Universal has even started posting U2 videos on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=universalmusicgroup

And now viacom is removing them?!

Can anyone explain this to me?

Viacom is doing this to Police concerts on youtube as well.
 
comedy central stuff like the daily show and colbert report clips have been taken down too :(
 
u2boy_nl said:
I'm amazed by this because Universal has struck a deal with youtube: http://news.com.com/YouTube+cuts+three+content+deals/2100-1030_3-6123914.html

Universal has even started posting U2 videos on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=universalmusicgroup

And now viacom is removing them?!

Can anyone explain this to me?
well i can at least tell you this, from my understand at least since i know many bands are cutting similar deals with youtube: any unofficial videos that aren't upped by the band are being taken down. it seems like they eventually want to have it so these bands just have the official videos (we're talking like the video for streets and things like that. fan shot videos don't, and shouldn't, apply) on youtube so the band receives a cut.
 
first FOX Corp. buys MySpace,
then Google buys YouTube,
what next?
Universal buys Interference?

:madspit:
 
its just big business and everyone wants to get their greedy mitts on it. Why can't somethings just be enjoyed before people start clambering over each other for cash. You tube wasn't hurting anyone, or taking multi millions of cash away from companies, it was sharing some real cool things with th epublic, and now some big fat greedy corporation has gone and fucked it.

I hope someone other dudes open a new you tube sorta thing, and you tube can go down the drain! (along with the billion viacom paid for it!)
 
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the internet does not belong to the public. And that was our last facet too. :|
We are going to have to develop telepathy in order to escape contract fine print and loopholes.
 
dazzlingamy said:
its just big business and everyone wants to get their greedy mitts on it. Why can't somethings just be enjoyed before people start clambering over each other for cash. You tube wasn't hurting anyone, or taking multi millions of cash away from companies, it was sharing some real cool things with th epublic, and now some big fat greedy corporation has gone and fucked it.

I hope someone other dudes open a new you tube sorta thing, and you tube can go down the drain! (along with the billion viacom paid for it!)

Just like P2P platforms mean the beggining of "music for free", some companies might see Youtube as the beggining of "videos for free", because the concept of Youtube could develop easily.

MTV and shit like that would be the first ones to suffer with that.
 
Aygo said:


Just like P2P platforms mean the beggining of "music for free", some companies might see Youtube as the beggining of "videos for free", because the concept of Youtube could develop easily.

MTV and shit like that would be the first ones to suffer with that.


again...

since when MTV plays music videos?









PS: if any of you were the YouTube guys, would you turn down the 1.650 million dollars Google spend on YouTube? :wink:

damn Viacom, damn greddy bastards... Internet is free, I tell you :madwife:
 
PlaTheGreat said:
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the internet does not belong to the public. And that was our last facet too. :|
We are going to have to develop telepathy in order to escape contract fine print and loopholes.

There's no fine print or loopholes. Universal own it. Principle own it. Viacom own it. They get to choose what happens with it. They always have. They always will. You need to ask Warner Bros if you want to screen Batman Begins for a hundred people, whether it's free or not. You need to ask Viacom if you want to distribute clips of their tv shows to hundreds of millions of people. You need to ask Principle if you want to distribute U2's music to millions of people. It's always been that way and always will, as it should.

It's really very simple.

On their part, these companies need to understand that people expect this access now, and they should provide the legal alternative controled in whatever way they choose.

It's funny, right now I'm scouring through illegal film download sites.
 
Back
Top Bottom