they don't become the television host eqivalent of Metallica.

I just want to see if they can keep from giggling throughout the whole thing.

Colbert’s ‘green screen’ challenge became far more than just a joke. George Lucas himself embraced the concept and had ILM submit a video (which lost).

Actually Viacom could learn a lot from Lucas. Rather than fighting fan creativity, Lucas encourages it. As early as the late 70’s Lucas embraced fan-fiction by telling fans that could use his characters and creations to create their own stories as long as they stuck to a couple of basic guidelines (basically no porn and no selling of the work). He makes available sound effects, FX shots and CGI models for people to create fan-films. Hell he even judges fan made films (a number of them are quite good).

And contrary to the fears of many executives Lucas’s embrace of fandom has not hurt his bottom line or the value of his intellectual property. In fact Lucas himself has argued that it enhances the Star Wars name.

Executives need to stop being so afraid and they need to stop attacking the very people who by and love their work.

And here’s hoping the depositions end up on Youtube.

The likelihood of Stewart and Colbert having knowledge of anything relevant to the case is fairly small, and their opinions concerning the merits of video sharing are no more relevant to its legality than the opinion of anyone else you pick off the street. While their opinions may be interesting, it's hard to see how anything they could say is relevant.

Viacom is so incredibly DUMB about marketing. They desperately need to get some people into the company who understand how this century works. Youtube has endless possibilities as a promotional device for any business with brains and imagination enough to see it.

And, yes, I'm looking forward to seeing the Stewart/Colbert depositions posted on it, too!

Viacom has already righteously pissed off THIS YouTube fan.

Copyright infringement is serious!

When someone on YouTube breaks-up a copy of ABC's failed show "Cupid" (staring Jeremy Piven) which was cancelled in 1999 after only 15 episodes and never released on VHS or DVD – not only is that plainly illegal but ABC lost over 20 TRILLION dollars because of this and 47 people were hospitalized!

A 2 min clip of the “Daily Show” that was illegally posted onto YouTube recently cost Comedy Central 75 Billion dollars before it was removed. There were no fatalities, but it is estimated that several dozen viewers were seriously injured and hundreds more were forced to declare bankruptcy.

This is no joking matter!

Well, actually, it is a big joke that these billion dollar companies are claiming “damages”

Can someone please explain to be one more time how it is TV was broadcast for FREE ten years ago (paid for by commercials) but now, somehow, that stuff that was “free” is now no longer “free.”

How about this: who the hell do I send the check too?

Do I pay Comcast directly? Viacom? Comedy Central?

I just want to make ONE freaking payment and be done with it.

I don’t want to watch TV paid for (allegedly!) by commercial, then pay Comcast, then pay iTunes to pay it a third time, and then pay YouTube a fourth time to watch a show that was broadcast for free five years ago!

Viacom is managed by idiots! How do you draw younger crowd if they do not see the clips on places like YouTube? In their right mind, do they think that the younger age group will buy those videos? No one will watch them if they are not free. So, number of YouTube hits means nothing except that someone watching a 2min clip might watch the full program on TV. Then Viacom can sell Ad spots for that demographic. So, it shows that they live in citadel with highly paid lawyers. They will not win this case in million years. Even Google might have a counter-suit if they can prove that they actually made Colbert and Stuart more popular and Viacom earned money.

Stewart and Colbert depose for Google? The best part is, we each get to fill in our own punchline!

Here's mine: Watch for the highlights on Google Video!

Regardless of whether Colbert and Stewart think that You Tube makes them more popular, Viacom owns the copyrights to the material. You can hate Viacom for not wanting it put up on You Tube, but it's their right.

Youtube removes any copyrighted material from its site at the request of the copyright holder. What this requires is Viacom and other intellectual property owners monitor Youtube (and similar sites) and if they find their stuff removed request it be taken down (which Youtube does fairly quickly). Under the current system copyright holders are responsible for defending their own copyrights.

What Viacom wants is for Youtube to stop copyrighted material from appearing all together. In other words they want Youtube to check the copyright status of every clip posted PRIOR to it going up on their site. Obviously, given the shear volume of videos put up every day, this would be impossible. While it might be easy to note popular TV shows or movie clips it would be utterly impossible to check the copyright status of every single video (especially given the wide range of sources, many foreign, which appear). Not to mention the personnel, technical and time difficulties in having to sift through literally thousands of videos everyday. It would take days just to review a single days worth of videos.

Such a requirement would basically shut down video sharing sites.

The better option (which most other companies are following) is to try and find a way to work with Youtube (and other video sharing sites). The people who post and watch these videos are clearly fans. Many of them go so far as to re-edit clips to make their own stories. As I pointed out in my above post, Lucas actually embraces and encourages this type of fan behavior (going so far as to provide CGI models and sound effects). He’s suffered no loss in the value of his intellectual property and has probably increased it.

Again, under the current system copyright is respected but it requires copyright holders to defend their own property. What Viacom proposes is an impossible and unworkable system of prior restraint that would cripple video sharing sites.

As for the legality, that’s highly questionable. The posting of 1-2 minute clips by private citizens could arguably fall under ‘fair use.’