| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSViacom has a litany of complaints against YouTube, stemming from the appearance of "more than 150,000 unauthorized clips" from Viacom-owned TV shows and movies that have surfaced on the site.
For one, Viacom alleges that YouTube has profited from the copyrighted clips, using them to draw an audience. "YouTube deliberately built up a library of infringing works to draw traffic to the YouTube site, enabling it to gain a commanding market share, earn significant revenues, and increase its enterprise value."
Additionally, Viacom grouses that when it demands that YouTube remove specific clips, they tend to resurface -- sometimes within hours -- uploaded by other users.
And Viacom gripes that YouTube has the capability to weed out infringing content, but is only deploying that technology selectively, for companies it's forged deals with. "YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on favorable terms," states the complaint.
But, while Viacom obviously aims to show that YouTube has treated it unfairly, it's not at all clear that the media giant has the law on its side. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act arguably protects companies like YouTube from copyright infringement suits as long as they remove infringing content when the owner complains.
Viacom gripes that it shouldn't have to continually enforce its copyright, but the DMCA appears to put the burden of enforcement on the owner in these situations. Of course, the act has enough fine print to leave room for argument, but Viacom can expect a long, uphill battle.
RSS FEEDS
Companies that HAVE invested the time & money to create & produce & distribute should actively and aggressively pursue copyright violators. After all, if these people were stealing the DVDs/CDs from a retail outlet, wouldn't we expect the law to pursue them? "Online shoplifting" should be treated the same way.
Allowing YouTube and others like it to illegally re-distribute copyrighted material opens the door to the elimination of copyright protection for EVERYTHING - not just music, movies, tv shows, but also newspapers and magazines, ad campaigns, business proposals, trade secrets, software, research, books, artwork, patents, trademarks, etc. Is this a direction we really want to go?
If that happens, then some user uploading a song or video that is under copyright to their RoadRunner homepage just opened the door for the copyright holder to sue TimeWarner for infringement with a high profile prior ruling in their favor. The DMCA was worded as it is to protect the interests of the "pipelines" and infrastructure of the internet.
As much as it galls me to say it, the only real legal position Viacom can take is to go after the users that upload their content. This is something they would love to avoid though, as it doesn't exactly build brand equity to sue the community that is essentially your biggest fans. Just ask the RIAA how they are doing in the school popularity contest.
It's a very tricky issue, and both laws and business relationships need to update themselves to keep up with the times, neither of which are easy or painless for either side of the table.
I continue to believe that the real value of such short form content is in its role as the virtual water cooler since these clips generate buzz, attention and conversations around a content owner's long form content, which is where they make their real coin.
These same companies after all SPEND millions of dollars advertising these very same programs.
That said, the paradox is as much about control as it is about economics. Control of brand, control of content quality and control of monetization decisions.
One such approach that reconciles these issues is my own company's vQuote video sampling technology. I won't arm wave as this isn't the forum but if interested in such things, here is a URL: http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2007/01/vsocial_launche.html
Regards,
Mark Sigal vSocial, Inc. - Say it with Video
First, Viacom should be suing the people who copy their programs and upload them to YouTube, if they want to go after anyone at all. There are 77 video-distribution companies like YouTube and..... see YouTube
Think for a moment about a traditional bricks and mortar second hand store in your local high street. Every second hand store in the civilized world is legally responsible for ensuring that they do not sell stolen property. If they are found to be selling stolen property then they are at risk of being completely shut down by the law of the land.
Imagine as a business owner you go into a second hand store and find that they are selling your property which had been recently stolen form your store. Imagine approaching the manager of that store and getting the following response:
“We are terribly sorry that this has occurred and we will take this item off of our shelves immediately. Unfortunately I am afraid that we cannot take responsibility for ensuring that it will not happen again, because every item that comes into our store for sale is completely un-moderated and unchecked. What I suggest you do is check in with us every 5 minutes just to make sure that we aren’t profiting from selling anything else that may have belonged to you in the recent past. PS If you don’t like it, we’re a big company with money to spare, so see you in court…
I question why Viacom, CBS or anyone else is expected to police YouTube themselves to make sure that their property is not being sold illegally by a third party? (And make no mistake that just because YouTube is monetizing through advertising it does not mean that the content is not being “sold�).
In the physical world it is the legal responsibility of the second hand store to ensure that the content it sells in its store not stolen property, and so it should be with YouTube and other non discriminating UGC sites.
Sites like YouTube have created a simple storefront for small, independent, and individual players to sell their wares, and this represents a golden opportunity for content creators, aggregators, and marketers alike to make the most form this new opportunity to do business. But their needs to be a simple line between stolen content and user’s content, and it is the responsibility of the vendor to ensure that this line is not crossed
This is why Viacom doesn't have much of a chance in this part of their lawsuit. Google/You Tube has every right to give preference to the companies with which they've forged deals. The copyright protection measures most certainly cost Google something. Viacom is asking them to provide a service free that others pay for. To label this as coercion is a load of garbage. Viacom wants to force Google to do their job for them.