(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...The current legal battle between Viacom and Google/YouTube is going to have significant ramifications beyond today’s headlines. It’s getting surprisingly little play amongst much of the social media digerati, but it’s something we all need to be aware of.
The lawsuit and the proceedings around it are truly a sign of the times. It’s a direct outgrowth of what we’ve been emerging via the internet over the past several years. Sites such as YouTube have essentially become free communicative vehicles to not only view, but share and alter video productions of all types. The concept of “share” is important because most of us use it. But in reality, it is a nice way of saying “distribute”. And from distribute comes distribution - a fundamental with tremendous legal ramifications.
Alter is a tough one too. The “mash-ups” that many in social media and digital marketing talk of enthusiastically can be as problematic. As, I guess, it should be. At least in some cases. An artist creates an original piece of work. Then distributes it, usually netting some sort of financial gain. Others take it, and now because of new tools can alter it and redistribute it. Many times this new process leads to lost potential revenue for the original artist.
Basically what has happened was that YouTube became extremely popular practically overnight. So now we have tens of thousands of people posting videos - videos that may be copyrighted material (or at least contain copyrighted material). Interested parties on the original creative/distribution side sort of stood by, trying to figure what to make of it. That means artist, recording studios and major distributors. Sometimes it makes sense to let things slide. Other times it means lost revenue. Copyright infringement. But how the major players handle themselves at this juncture will probably set precedents for years to come.
All of this brouhaha is a result of overlapping laws, revenue distribution models, current legal precedents in related industries, and perhaps most importantly, the determination by key players to establish new legal precedents and business processes.
Part of the problem is that there is little established law beyond the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that establishes a foundation to base anything on. Consequently, it’s been up to the courts to decide what it legal and what it not. This puts all parties in a bind because the likely solutions could create a lot of losers.
Currently, web properties that entail copyrighted digital content are required to get two licenses from interested parties. One is a reproduction license from the record company as the record company often has sole rights for reproduction. The second is a public performance license from the performers and/or their agent representatives.
But the problem is that its not that YouTube is getting those licenses them selves and then showing the videos - videos that can’t be downloaded and distributed. The problem is that anyone can take a copyrighted video and uploaded it up to YouTube. Now the video can be distributed as others can now download it.
Representatives of the music and entertainment industries are thus saying that YouTube would thus need a distribution license as well. And these arguments have been paying off in court. YouTube is acting as an enabler, intended or not.
It’s not as if Google and YouTube have been sitting still in all this, letting everything stupidly happen. They’ve already reached agreements on reproduction with major music labels and artist representatives. But that, of course, doesn’t address distribution models.
YouTube is making some efforts - but it’s the nature of their business model that’s hurting them on this. And the popularity of the service.
For one, they limit the time allowed for videos to 10 minutes. This way, whole programs can’t be recorded and posted. YouTube has also set up a “content identification system” that allows a content owner to set up a “reference file” on copyrighted work which enables YouTube to locate exact matches between a piece of copyrighted work and something that is posted. The problem there is that anything can be altered, and alterations (those pesky “mashups” can throw the system off. Once YouTube identifies a piece of copyrighted material, they then contact the artists and productions studios to inquire as to whether or not it should be removed.
Those that continually upload copyrighted material will be asked to stop, and if they fail to do so, can have their YouTube account suspended.
All in all, YouTube seems to be doing all it can to stop all of this. But the current technological capabilities, coupled with the site’s enormous popularity have made it impossible to really have an effective system in place. At least in the mindset of companies like Viacom.
Filed under: Aggregation, Blowback, Brand Promotion, Brand Protection, Case Studies, Citizen Generated Media, Content Filtering, Content Management Solution, Content Management System, Controversial Marketing, Copyright Issue, Copywriting, Corporate Responsibility, Crisis Management, Google, Google YouTube, Honesty, Information Technology, Integrity, Intellectual Property, Internet Culture, Internet Strategy, Legal Issues, New Media Strategy, New Technology, Online Brand Protection, Peer-to-Peer, Technology, Television, Video Over IP, Viral Advertising, Viral Marketing, Viral Media, Viral Propagation, Viral Videos, Web Strategy, YouTube, YouTube Marketing
Loading ...
i still wonder — aren’t there some legal parallels here with the RIAA and music (file) sharing sites like the original Napster, KaZaa and such?
just musing, of course
Yep, that’s what it’s going to turn into. The enthusiasm that launched the enthusiasm behind these sites exceeded the technology required to pass muster on copyright issues. Hence, the RIAA and Viacom.