jillrg
Avatar Korra
By Fialleril at LJ
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by jillrg on Mar 14, 2007 18:58:16 GMT -5
... and it's partially our fault. All our Avatar amvs consist of material copyrighted by Viacom, after all. When is Viacom going to get with the times and realize 160,000 clips of their shows being viewed over 1.5 billion times is a good thing?Here's just one of the articles summing up the problem: internet.seekingalpha.com/article/29579
|
|
|
Post by brilliantlygreen on Mar 14, 2007 19:16:43 GMT -5
Yeah, even though Youtube went and deleted 95% of the videos, people (mostly new avatards who have no idea this whole viacom/youtube thing is going on) are still uploading avatar AMV's.
Viacom just needs to create it's own video site for us to host our videos on.
|
|
|
Post by Star Flicker on Mar 14, 2007 19:32:44 GMT -5
Omg. Why can't they understand all the Avatar AMVs are good! The more AMVs, the more people love the show. They'll never stop us from uploading our Avatar AMVs though. We'll always find another site to host our vids on.
|
|
.::Alexia::.
Avatar Kuruk
Top Zutara Icon by bagpipe turtle! Thankies! ^^
Posts: 1,496
|
Post by .::Alexia::. on Mar 14, 2007 21:56:03 GMT -5
This has been disscussed so many times. -.-
But yeah its a bad thing. I really like those fan videos. ;_;
|
|
|
Post by watergirl on Nov 3, 2007 15:30:45 GMT -5
You're right. Besides putting up videos give them publicity. It'snot like we steal them either. Infact every video I see has a disclaimer saying I don't own Avatar. Why should they sue because of the Avtar vids? It isn't the only show that have fanvids on their.
|
|
|
Post by watergirl on Nov 3, 2007 15:39:51 GMT -5
Here is another thought. When they started to delete them they said something about losing business becasue of the videos on Google they didn't say anything about copyrighting infact I didn't even know that Viacom the materials the were copyrighted were by Viacom untill now. I thought Nick owned all the materials of Avatar? I never heard of Viacom either untill the day thye started to delete them. I wish they would tell us this. Even though I don't think it counts as copyrighting if we use scenes from diffferent epis mixed together as one counted as copyrighting especially if you put a disclaimer saying it isn't yours. Not ot mention we don't know what are copyrighted by Viacom anyways so it isn't fair to sue YOutube because one It's a site to show vids we are the one that make them. Two because what was said above the first one. Three The site is to show off videos includeing fanvids. And yo can't make fanvids without clips unless you only use fanart, but than all of them would be more like slide show. those are reason why not only is it unfair to sue Youtube, but there isn't really any reason too. beside YOutube isn't the only site that presents videos.
|
|
|
Post by watergirl on Nov 3, 2007 15:42:29 GMT -5
Even though they are doing this because they think Youtube did something illegal than I really hope they lose the hearing becasue they are taking this way out of porportion for pete sakes. Why don't they just make their own fanvid website.
|
|
fuego
Pabu
Four Nation Health Care
Posts: 3,430
|
Post by fuego on Nov 3, 2007 15:53:04 GMT -5
Well first of Viacom has there own video site(Ifilms) but just like the rest of them out there...There not as mainstreem or well-know like Youtube...which I call the Wal-Mart of Video sharing sites.
Again it funny that were making the argument that is bad but so then why are the rating "down". If past argument has been this free advertisement and you gain new fans out this.
|
|
|
Post by kataangrl on Nov 5, 2007 16:46:48 GMT -5
Viacom is hurting their own reputation by requesting deletions.
|
|
Unagi
penguin
Says "woman" and what I hope is "Zuko."
Posts: 6
|
Post by Unagi on Dec 5, 2007 18:26:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but when are you guys going to learn? People keep posting threads about how AMV's are fine as long as they aren't full episodes and that Viacom has no right to remove them and it's hurting their reputation. But what you're saying is completely untrue! For those who didn't know, Viacom owns Nick as well as several other large channels. Obviously, this includes Avatar. Avatar is copyrighted by Viacom. Therefore, any clips of Avatar in any form (including AMV's) are copyrighted and are not legally allowed to be posted. So YouTube has every right to delete Avatar AMV's. It doesn't matter that they're not full episodes; the point is, AMV's are made up of copyrighted material and therefore, are illegal. And no amount of protesting will change that (I haven't heard any here, but on YouTube people are going around saying it's illegal to remove AMV's). I'm not trying to discourage anybody from making AMV's and posting them (I have several), but I'm just saying that everything Viacom is doing is completely legal.
|
|
Pixar
Kyoshi Mai
Posts: 2,360
|
Post by Pixar on Dec 5, 2007 18:41:55 GMT -5
^We all--well, most of us--know that it's completely legal and Viacom does have the right to sue for allowing Avatar videos, but what the others are saying is that it isn't all that reasonable. Putting up episodes or AMV's increases the popularity of the show. It boosts ratings. But Nick doesn't asir Avatar unless it's a new episode these days, and Avatar had loads of fans who still want to watch it. And where do we turn? Youtube, more than likely. We're not putting videos on there to break the law, we're putting them up there because we like the show. Viacom just doesn't seem to get that.
|
|
|
Post by bandanamama on Dec 6, 2007 17:21:55 GMT -5
Here is another thought. When they started to delete them they said something about losing business becasue of the videos on Google they didn't say anything about copyrighting infact I didn't even know that Viacom the materials the were copyrighted were by Viacom untill now. I thought Nick owned all the materials of Avatar? I never heard of Viacom either untill the day thye started to delete them. I wish they would tell us this. Even though I don't think it counts as copyrighting if we use scenes from diffferent epis mixed together as one counted as copyrighting especially if you put a disclaimer saying it isn't yours. Not ot mention we don't know what are copyrighted by Viacom anyways so it isn't fair to sue YOutube because one It's a site to show vids we are the one that make them. Two because what was said above the first one. Three The site is to show off videos includeing fanvids. And yo can't make fanvids without clips unless you only use fanart, but than all of them would be more like slide show. those are reason why not only is it unfair to sue Youtube, but there isn't really any reason too. beside YOutube isn't the only site that presents videos. What I've actually seen deleted are the people who upload the episodes in chunks so that they can be viewed online instead of on tv. Not so many AMV's or spoofs, but the actual episodes.
|
|
Apocalypsering
Sokka
I am the world's only BendyStrawBender!
Posts: 130
|
Post by Apocalypsering on Dec 9, 2007 11:24:17 GMT -5
We're not putting videos on there to break the law, we're putting them up there because we like the show. Viacom just doesn't seem to get that. I've seen this arguement used an awful lot in debates relating to YouTube, and quite honestly I find it terribly weak. There is a very serious reason why Viacom doesn't want Avatar episodes being posted on the web. It may sound harsh, but Viacom does not care if people miss the episode on TV. (I'll address AMVs in a second). Viacom, which owns Nickalodeon, makes money off of advertisers buying commercial time during the show. They need people to watch the show on Nick so they can charge more to the advertisers. If people can see the video elsewhere and without commercials, they lose ratings and money. AMVs pose a less serious but still noteable problem. Just like Viacom, YouTube makes money from advertising on its website. People go to YouTube to see the videos posted there. If the videos and characters in those videos belong to Viacom, then Viacom's characters are being used indirectly to make money for YouTube. Viacom wants a cut of the money that YouTube made off of those videos. It was never a question of what the fans want. That's the last thing Viacom is thinking of, because they know that even if the YouTube videos go down, people will still watch the show on Nick and they still get their ad money. Most likely YouTube will win this lawsuit. Based on past court decisions and the fact that YouTube does routinely attempt to delete such material I don't think that Viacom has a leg to stand on in this case. YouTube can't be held responsible for the actions of thirty million users. They do delete spoofs fairly often. I've seen spoofs of other shows vanish. AMV deletion is much rarer, probably because most networks realize that AMVs aren't directly affecting their own TV ratings and they also see that the current laws favor websites like YouTube in cases such as this.
|
|
Escalus (Syn)
Avatar Kyoshi
Your Avatar title might impress some people, but not me.
Posts: 1,336
|
Post by Escalus (Syn) on Dec 9, 2007 12:49:54 GMT -5
Should This be in the Creation's Forum?
|
|
|
Post by ladylindz on Jan 24, 2008 18:41:53 GMT -5
I don't think Viacom is doing anything wrong by taking down episodes. I mean, they do have the right to manage what they own. BUT, here's the kicker: They don't want people posting episodes online, or viewing them online. But they won't air any episodes on T.V.! Let's face it: Avatar has come to a standstill in the U.S., and this isn't the first time it's happened. Exhibit A: the frighteningly long gap between seasons 2 and 3. I know breaks in the seasons and between seasons occur, but no air dates are being released, either. They aren't even airing re-runs. What I'm trying to say is that I would consider Viacom more reasonable if they made it easier to watch episodes legally, but they've all but taken them hostage. With regard to the AMVs. Viacom should wisen up and realize that there's much to be gained by embracing the fans' creative takes on their product. Host a contest and put the best AMVs on a bonus DVD that can be SOLD for PROFIT.
|
|