Filed under: Copyright Issue, Copywriting, Google, Integrity, Intellectual Property, Legal Issues, Viral Videos, YouTube

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…

No Comments » Posted on July 16th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

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

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…

2 Comments » Posted on July 11th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blowback, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Case Studies, Citizen Media, Content Filtering, Content Management System, Controversial Marketing, Copywriting, Corporate Partnering, Corporate Responsibility, Google, Google YouTube, Honesty, Industry Reputation, Influence, Information Technology, Intellectual Property, Invasion of Privacy, Legal Issues, News Organization, Online Applications, Online Brand Protection, Online Copywriting, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Video, Personal Privacy, Personal Responsibility, Privacy

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.

No Comments » Posted on July 6th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Strategy, Blogger Ethics, Blogger Influence, Blogger Outreach, Blogger Relations, Blogging, Blogging Policies, Blowback, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Controversial Marketing, Corporate Blog, Corporate Blogging, Corporate Responsibility, Defensive SEO, Honesty, Internet Strategy, Legal Issues, Online Attack, Online Brand Intelligence, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Communications, Online Outreach, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Strategy, PR Blogging, PR Industry, PR Pitching, Public Relations, Public Relations Blogs, Public Relations Industry

I’ll be taking a look at Southwest’s overall response to the report that they had been flying “unairworthy” planes. This controversy relates to missed or overlooked inspections, small or tiny cracks, a thumbs up by a FAA inspector, and a short period of continued flying violations after the problem was identified.

As usual, in cases like this, the story is hard to follow. That always seems to create initial hysteria and then allows to potential offending party to spin the story to their benefit, often leaving out key concepts.

It seems that in 2004, the FAA issued a ruling that all 737 airplanes must be inspected every 4,500 flights. These inspections were primarily concerned about cracking, a condition which that can lead to very dangerous situations.

On March 15, 2007, Southwest let the FAA that it may have allowed 46 planes to exceed that number of flights as decided by the FAA. Southwest then did and internal investigation and found that, yes, those 46 planes did indeed exceed that limit by a total of 59.791 flights. They reported back this information to the FAA on March 19. However, after disclosing this information to the FAA, they continued to fly those planes for four more days to March 23 for an additional 1,451 flights.

At some point within that March 15-23 time period, an FAA official gave Southwest the thumbs up to continue to fly the planes as long as they were quickly inspected. That official, now being disciplined, is supposedly based out of Dallas, which coincidentally, is where Southwest Airlines is headquartered.

For this transgression, the FAA is proposing a $10.2 million fine.

That’s the story as I see it so far. I’ll be examinging their response as time goes on.

Next, I’ll be taking a look at the way they’re corresponding through their blog.

That’s the story as I see it so far.

No Comments » Posted on March 8th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Strategy, Blogger Engagement, Blogger Relations, Blogger Response, Blowback, Brand Promotion, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Branding, Branding Online, Buzz Marketing, Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Journalism, Citizen Media, Code of Conduct, Cult of Personality, Customer Ratings, Customer Reviews, Influence, Influencer Identification, Influencers, Influencial Bloggers, Influential Brand Advocates, Influentials, Intellectual Property, Legal Blogs, Legal Issues, Memetics, New Marketing, New Media, New Media Blogs, New Media Marketing, New Media Strategy, New PR, Online Advocacy, Online Avertising, Online Brand Intelligence, Online Brand Promotion, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Branding, Online Communities, Online Community Outreach, Online Engagement, Online Evangelism, Online Facilitation, Online Marketing, Online Participation, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Reviewers, Online Reviews, Online Strategy, PR Hubris, Peer-to-Peer, Pop Culture, Public Relations, Reputation Rehabilitation, Social Meda, Social Networking, Viral Marketing, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Word-of-Mouth, Word-of-Mouth Marketing

I just asked a question via Twitter. And I’ll repeat it here.

Question for social media types…many complain about interference from legal dept. when it comes to social media, especially with UGC…so, are there any conferences, events, seminars, etc. that bring the two groups together to understand one another more?

Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a good question. And it’s one that needs to be answered.

Marketers are essentially in charge of defining, promoting, enhancing, and protecting the brand. Lawyers are essentially in charge of protecting the entity, the business, and, yes, the brand.

I got to thinking about this because social media strategists often, as part of their strategy, enlist, encourage, or allow a brands users to play a role in the branding. I got to thinking of a recent story involving a group of car enthusiasts putting together a picture calendar showing off their cars. They calendars were to be sold on CafePress. But there was some sort of communication screw up and it was halted I believe. Some social media strategists mistakenly blamed the car company.

But then I thought…wait…if the legal department did have reservations in this situation, is that necessarily a bad thing? Think about it….

What if one of the participants of an unsolicited consumer generated media effort has let’s say a problem. Like a police record. I mean, let’s say he’s the type of guy who could get nailed by Chris Hansen of Nightline. You know, a pedophile.

Ridiculous? If you think so, you’re missing the point. The point is that legal department and marketing departments are going to have to understand one another and work together to both reasonably promote and protect the brand through social media. Cutting edge vs. overly cautious won’t do. Lawyer potentially nixing or at least getting in the way of potentially effective programs or frustrated marketing types angrily rolling their eyes at the stupidity and interference of the legal department will only serve to stifle the brand, or, potentially worse, leave it unprotected.

No Comments » Posted on March 2nd, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Next Page »

  • blog advertising is good for you