Comments on: the sideshow coalition http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/ DFTBA Records co-founder, musician and artist. Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Davishttp://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-177 Davis Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:43:40 +0000 http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-177 Wow, I thought stupidity like this was only the province of Italian courts.Let's hope that a USA court will have more of a clue. Wow, I thought stupidity like this was only the province of Italian courts.

Let’s hope that a USA court will have more of a clue.

]]> By: thestig888http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-176 thestig888 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:02:36 +0000 http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-176 wow i really wish you alan, youtube and the rest of the community the best of luck in winning this court case,<br /><br />viacom winning would be a catastrophy for us and future youtube users wow i really wish you alan, youtube and the rest of the community the best of luck in winning this court case,

viacom winning would be a catastrophy for us and future youtube users

]]> By: Chris Knighthttp://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-175 Chris Knight Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:43:59 +0000 http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-175 Just <a href="http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2010/06/knight-shift-is-standing-up-for.html" rel="nofollow">posted about this on my own blog</a>.<br /><br />Viacom came after me three years ago over YouTube: they took MY video without permission, ran it on VH1 and then said I was violating THEIR copyright when I put the clip of *that* on YouTube. Still bugs me that it happened. Just posted about this on my own blog.

Viacom came after me three years ago over YouTube: they took MY video without permission, ran it on VH1 and then said I was violating THEIR copyright when I put the clip of *that* on YouTube. Still bugs me that it happened.

]]> By: Elinioushttp://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-174 Elinious Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:42:11 +0000 http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-174 I read the brief you wrote, and I love it, but I am not sure how important it ultimately is in the lawsuit... I'll admit, I don't know anything about this sort of stuff, but the brief just shows that you love youtube for your various reasons. Why would these 'feelings' matter to a court, which is supposed to be led by reason? This won't disprove the fact that you're not a side show, nor will it prove Viacom's claim that a side show exists because I think that's very difficult if not impossible to prove?<br /><br />Maybe we should consider the fact that the community that we built, is actually less important income wise than the illegal content on YouTube. We think the YouTube community is important because we're in it, we follow each others lives every day, it makes our lives a little bigger. But I don't know anyone else irl who does this. All the other people I know stumble upon a Charlie video every once in a while, laugh, and move on. They use YouTube for music and cat videos the rest of the time. (My sister proves this. She sometimes visits Charlie's channel, drewls over his good looks, doesn't pay attention to words as nerdfighter and moves on to watch some cute kitties.) I'm just trying to say that while the community might be big for us, it's small for the rest of the world.<br /><br />Maybe I missed the whole point, who knows. (If anyone wants to reply, I'll be checking up on the comments here periodically... Just sayin cause of Alans blog post yesterday.)<br /><br />PS: I do hope YouTube wins this thing. And I personally find the community the most interesting part of YouTube, don't get me wrong. I just think it's worth exploring the other side. I read the brief you wrote, and I love it, but I am not sure how important it ultimately is in the lawsuit… I'll admit, I don't know anything about this sort of stuff, but the brief just shows that you love youtube for your various reasons. Why would these 'feelings' matter to a court, which is supposed to be led by reason? This won't disprove the fact that you're not a side show, nor will it prove Viacom's claim that a side show exists because I think that's very difficult if not impossible to prove?

Maybe we should consider the fact that the community that we built, is actually less important income wise than the illegal content on YouTube. We think the YouTube community is important because we're in it, we follow each others lives every day, it makes our lives a little bigger. But I don't know anyone else irl who does this. All the other people I know stumble upon a Charlie video every once in a while, laugh, and move on. They use YouTube for music and cat videos the rest of the time. (My sister proves this. She sometimes visits Charlie's channel, drewls over his good looks, doesn't pay attention to words as nerdfighter and moves on to watch some cute kitties.) I'm just trying to say that while the community might be big for us, it's small for the rest of the world.

Maybe I missed the whole point, who knows. (If anyone wants to reply, I'll be checking up on the comments here periodically… Just sayin cause of Alans blog post yesterday.)

PS: I do hope YouTube wins this thing. And I personally find the community the most interesting part of YouTube, don't get me wrong. I just think it's worth exploring the other side.

]]> By: footynutguyhttp://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-173 footynutguy Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:19:39 +0000 http://alanlastufka.com/the-sideshow-coalition/#comment-173 A great article, but I wish to take issue with one point. <br /><br />I disagree when you say that Viacom doesn't get YouTube. I think they do get it and they see it ax a threat. If we're all making and watching YouTube videos then we are spending less time in front of the tv and, therefore, watching less of Viacoms output and the adverts that come with it. <br /><br />This surely would lead to a drop in their profits and they seem to be using any means at their disposal to neutralize the 'threat' that they consider YouTube to be. <br /><br />Although the copywrite issue is important, I think is is just a smokescreen that they use to disguise the fact that they are scared of competition. A great article, but I wish to take issue with one point.

I disagree when you say that Viacom doesn't get YouTube. I think they do get it and they see it ax a threat. If we're all making and watching YouTube videos then we are spending less time in front of the tv and, therefore, watching less of Viacoms output and the adverts that come with it.

This surely would lead to a drop in their profits and they seem to be using any means at their disposal to neutralize the 'threat' that they consider YouTube to be.

Although the copywrite issue is important, I think is is just a smokescreen that they use to disguise the fact that they are scared of competition.

]]>