Viacom's Bluffing

It's time for Google to call Viacom on its bluff, Viacom only benefits from YouYube and definitely does not want its YouTube presense removed. The Viacom lawsuit claiming "massive intentional copyright infringement" is just one gigantic bluff, Viacom simply wants to have its cake and eat it too.

If Viacom is really trying to create its own equivalent counter to YouTube then they are giving a decisive edge to all its competitors who would rather strike up a deal with YouTube. Since YouTube is purely a free content host it doesn't charge royalties for hosted videos. Media companies that are willing to work with YouTube don't have to pay server costs, web development or anything else like that, nor will they have to create any community from scratch.

Perhaps Viacom is trying to end or at least damage YouTube's standing so that its own iFilm can get a step closer to market dominance. Of course this creates the double edge sword, if YouTube is infringing on copyright how come iFilm isn't? Unless of course the hypothetical content screener is advanced enough to catch all copyright material before long (which is next to impossible).

Viacom insists YouTube is a media company, as such is obligated to pay royalty fees in the tune of 1 billion dollars and/or install some sort of software filter to remove and prevent the uploading of Viacom content. Viacom probably doesn't think it is technically feasible to install such a filter and simultaneously doesn't want to lose its significant YouTube presence hence it has a win-win situation here. I would even hazard to say all the take down notices Viacom has been hitting YouTube with is part of the bluff Viacom intends to take to the courtroom.

Of course Viacom can't get the 1 billion, hence will rely on settling out of court with Google, obviously Viacom will still gain from it. What Google should do is trump Viacom, if it is possible, install the software filter, then cut Viacom completely from all services including Google search. If Google is a media company then it is in their right to do (even if it isn't, but this gives greater legal standing over Viacom).

When Viacom starts losing ratings, hence profits due to this cut off from the Google empire a lawsuit won't get them anywhere given they have already declared YouTube, and as such the entire Google empire, as a Content Generator, not Content Host. Hence to get back with Google Viacom will have to pay royalties to Google, to regain its place in Google's search engine and hosting on YouTube.

Of course this is an ideal situation, in the real world Google will suffer massive negative backlash if it cuts a company from its search outright, however it will prove itself as an important case study (if you would like to call it that) to big businesses that they do in fact require Google to stay competitive.

Consecutive Digg Down History?

Was Digg history recently made with eight (as of writing) consecutive Digg downs replying to the first comment on the Finalized Halo 3 Box Art Digg?

Is it a record? Or has something more spectacular happened before?

Digg Sucks! Why Do You Digg Me Down!? Conspiracy!

The recent spate of hurls thrown at Digg by Wired did not prove Digg is inherently broken or corrupt, the only thing it did prove is that the Digg VS Reddit war has gone beyond that of delusional fanboy flamewars and crossed over into the realm of corporate warfare. But why?

Would the fact the ‘delusional’ fanboy not caring about petty differences have something to do with it? In the past Reddit used to have stories every so often reaching the top about Digg stuffing up or Digg losing ground because of such and such decision or Kevin Rose making out with Dick Cheney. All that has stopped with Reddit, the mature members are now outnumbering the increasingly fewer fanboys.

Enter Wired, trying to rev up the hate between the two services, Annalee Newitz deliberately went out to create a frontpage story on Digg via a ‘pay per Digg’ and guess what? Failed miserably when the story got kicked off the frontpage.

Of course the latest attack on Digg is all about the so-called ‘bury brigade’ which is allegedly a group of members on Digg that diggs down stories critical of Digg. Now I know Digg members love their website, so if anything, it’s the entire userbase digging down stories ‘critical’ of the service they love.

Oh I hate you David Cohn, you fool, lets look at why the listed stories ‘critical of Digg’ that were submitted were consequently buried,

This one

“The "proof" mentioned in the headline is really no proof at all, sadly. This is a promising beginning, but any 'proof' needs a sample size of buries that's several orders of magnitude larger than what's used.” - bofhcabbit

What about this one?

“"What is the number of buries before an article is hidden anyway?"

now THAT'S the question isn't it? think for 1 second...if users are cohorting to bury stories, don't you think knowing the exact amount would be the holy grail for them? knowing the exact amount ONLY invites abuse...THINK!” - blake10

This one isn’t even critical of Digg, believe it or not most Digg users don't want to know how many Diggs it takes for a story to get kicked off the frontpage because if that gets out then these so-called 'bury brigades' will cross over from the realm of sci-fi to reality. Reality sucks.

What Wired’s ‘investigation’ proves is that Digg members will bury content they don’t like, they will Digg content they like. But we already knew that didn’t we?

Clearly Wired ran that story for the sole purpose of restarting the now burnt out fire between Digg and Reddit. The members have nothing to do with it, they’ve gone past that point of stupid fanboyism. People use the service they prefer, end of story.