YouTube has to fork over viewer records to plaintiff Viacom as a result of the recent law suit regarding copyright issues.  I understand Viacom’s desire for that, but I disagree with the ruling.

The cool thing is that Google - YouTube’s parent company - has successfully negotiated with Viacom to scrub and data that can be used to identify users.  Names and IP addresses are gone.

So, it’s likely, regarding privacy, the problem’s over in this particular case.

But there are two buts. Read more…

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. Read more…

U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton may have opened up a Pandora’s box.

Last year, Viacom, the owner of  such major cable networks as Black Entertainment Television, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon, sued YouTube and Google because YouTube, through it’s uploading system, was allowing it users to upload Viacom copyrighted videos.  YouTube was profiting from this as it increased its audience and, thus, advertising revenue.  Viacom was, in turn, losing online audience and potential revenue.  It saw itself, legitimately in my mind, as a content provider for YouTube, without receiving compensation.

YouTube immediately began scouring its databases and removing copyrighted video from Viacom. But considering the amount of videos that are uploaded - every hour on the clock, 780 hours of video are sent to YouTube’s servers - the task of finding and identifying copyrighted material is daunting.  A lot can get by the YouTube’s regulators, so to speak.

So the lawsuit stayed, with Viacom demanding access to YouTube’s database of user info.  The database is larger that that of the Library of Congress mind you.

YouTube’s database essentially contains four pieces of info:  the user’s unique login ID, their IP address, the time frame that the video was watched, and the video itself.  Usually, a login ID and an IP address can’t be used to identify an individual, but “usually” is a very inexact word.

Viacom is saying that they aren’t doing this to go after individuals.  They’re not doing this to nail someone who uploaded last night’s The Daily Show.  I believe them, at least for now.  But that doesn’t mean that they keep to that forever.

It makes no sense for them to try to use this data to sue people who have been uploading copyrighted videos at this juncture.  The ‘YouTube culture’ is one that has permitted this to happen and Viacom needs to work to change that culture over a year or two.

Viacom is saying that it wants to gauge the popularity of its copyrighted material.  Again, that makes sense.  We are talking revenue generating material that, while on YouTube, ins not directly generating measurable video.

There is some good news here.  Google, while not appealing, has asked Viacom to give them time to erase user names and IP addresses.  Viacom is open to the idea.

That’s great.  But that’s only this case.   You can be that this is opening a can of worms.

I’ll be investigating this further.  Stay tuned.

One of the clearest differences I see between newer social media marketing types and more traditional - yet digital savvy - advertising vets is the way they present themselves online.

Social media types will give you all of their contact info. Their emails, their places on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Pownce, LinkedIn, Jaiku, and Plaxo. They’ll tweet or twit or twitter (what is the right term anyway?) what they’re doing at that exact moment, regardless of how inane it is. Consider the following that I see on my computer screen:

“applebee’s it is. <sigh>”

“dogs heads out of car windows today in DC”

“You are stronger than a bagel”

Got that?  This is how some spend our weekend afternoons. Odd as these might seem, there’s nothing wrong with that. I guess. That’s part of the culture of social media types. Or anyone who’s likely to use Twitter extensively.

But then there’s the folks who have been in advertising a bit longer. They’re not digital dumb and they’re not skeptical of all of what social media people talk about. But they’ve been through a lot and they’ve got great insight and they have their finger on the pulse of how the ad industry is and how it’s changing. They usually understand the mentality of clients better than frustrated social media strategists who often rightfully complain that the traditional marketing types “don’t get it”, but mistakenly view established strategies and venues as being completely ineffective and obsolete.

The thing that most telling is that many of the traditional types that blog won’t reveal their true identity. They create certain personas in order to be able to write freely. I get the impression that they’re itching to tell it like it is, but don’t want to deal with all the blowback.

The ad industry is a tough industry. Can be harsh, cannibalistic. Filled with people who are convinced of their own creative talent yet think that the current state of the industry absolutely sucks. Yet for all this cynicism, it seems that if anyone sticks their neck out and challenges that mentality - or anything for that matter - could be asking to have their heads cut off and then attacked by a swarm of hornets.

So I admire these intrepid types. I learn from them. I love getting their insight and call out the haughtiness of both stick-in-the-mud uber traditionalists and some of the cocky younger colleagues who have decided that the entire marketing industry has officially changed because they say so.

So here are a few of my favorites

Tangerine Toad - Toad’s blog is actually The Toad Stool and it’s a must read for me. He’s a NY-based CD who is sharp enough to see both the pretentiousness and strengths of traditional advertising and both the promise and the hype of new media. And he’s created two great categories on his blog, Your Brand is Not My Friend and Not Everyone is a Upscale Urban 30Something White Male Hipster. I love them both because most people don’t want every brand they buy to be their friends. They just want to buy a product and be done with it. And so many ads out there seem to be designed to appeal to the same demographic that’s creating the ads, when most of us aren’t that demographic.

There’s new friend AdBroad who’s been in the business for over 30 years and has had to deal with sexism on one end, and now ageism on the other. Through it all, she’s learned way more than many of today’s young hotshots would want to admit.

AgencySpy’s got a great idea going on. He or she’s got a blog that allows ad agency types to send in the scoop as to what’s going on behind the scenes. Plus he or she has their own biting commentary.  And biting = humorous.

MultiCultClassics takes a look at the industry from a VERY underrepresented group in today’s advertising arena: African Americans. I have no idea who this guy is either. His blog was one of several I turned to when writing what has become the most viewed post here on Marketing Conversation.

And then there’s Where’s My Jetpack? who explains his blog by writing “Back when we were kids, the advertising people told us that “in the future” we’d all be free from disease and living in peace, flying around with our own jetpacks. The future is now…and we’re still waiting.” With that, I knew it would be great read.

So there’s a list of my anonymous All-Stars. Check ‘em out.

Shel Holtz wrote on Strumpette, “Amanda also attacks PR practitioners who can’t write. On this point, we’re in complete agreement” (and I take out of context). I responded, I think it is important to speak like the locals. I was told, during my short stint at Big Agency, to keep it 7th grade reading ease. I think that is a good point-of-reference. Read more…