I love Youtube. As most can tell from my past three post subjects, but here is an interesting twist on the Youtube/Viacom showdown. Now activist organizations are suing Viacom for requesting the removal of a parody of The Colbert Show. While it contained clips from Colbert, they groups claim that they were protected under "fair use" doctrine and that Viacom erred in requesting its take-down.
Got to love it when trying to protect your copyrighted material comes back to bite you in the ass. For me this just illustrates another flaw in the "take-down" request logic embodied in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Inevitably someone (one of these Youtube scanning employees at these big time corporations) is going to screw up and request that something be taken down that probably has a right to be there. With the volume of take-down requests that go out every single day, it is unlikely that there is much oversight. One employee steps on the wrong persons toes, and the company gets tied up in a free speech lawsuit potentially costing it big bucks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a scenario.
Ultimately, I think this just adds fuel to Viacom's larger complaint/suit against Google and Youtube. Now, take down requests come with teetch if they are not executed carefully. THis limits the ability of the copyright holder to effectively manage the massive volume of postings each day on Youtube. Inevitably copyright privileges will be violated, and there is not much the company can do about it under current law.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Political advertising not just for the rich anymore...
The dimensions of political campaigning are transforming yet again as tech-savy activists exploit Youtube as a forum for posting cheap, provocative campaign ads. If you haven't seen it yet - here's the link for the new "1984" Anti-Hillary Youtube ad.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Youtube under fire...
I wondered how long it would take for someone to attempt to slay the internet video goliath ... and once Google bought Youtube the money got real big.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)