In so many words, this is where commercialization clashes with Web 2.0.
Viacom, the mother company of TV networks such as MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon, has filed a lawsuit amounting to $1B against Google, the now mother company of video website, YouTube with grounds of copyright infringement.
The two sides of the story. First with Viacom. Here’s what Viacom has to say (the whole press release can be found here):
YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.
And Google answers with their own press release:
YouTube is great for users and offers real opportunities to rights holders: the opportunity to interact with users; to promote their content to a young and growing audience; and to tap into the online advertising market. We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users, more traffic and build a stronger community.
Viacom’s targeting all those uploaded videos that supposedly infringe intellectual property - clips of shows like Spongebob Squarepants, The Daily Show, Colbert Reports… They insist that it is Google’s responsibility to check the videos for any issues with copyright infringement criticizing the current ways of how Google handles things where they wait for copyright holders to raise the issue with them. And Viacom does just that not with a notification but with a lawsuit.
But many other networks have accepted the fact that policing YouTube (or the whole Web for that matter) is a futile task. Never mind if it’s the guys who brought us MTV (who were once the dictators of what’s “hot”) who want it done. Is it because, Google, by it’s great innovations phased MTV out as the thermostat of what’s hot and what’s not. Quite honestly, I haven’t tuned in to MTV for quite sometime now. But YouTube, I raid daily.
Take BBC for example. They have fully embraced the Tube revolution and made strides in joining the Tube bandwagon, offering their own channels for Tube viewers. It’s a win-win situation, in my opinion. No need for other people infringing their own intellectual property. With their channels, they can provide top quality videos and full attribution and control. Best of all, they get to earn side by side with Google.
BBC shows us that there is a proactive way to deal with the revolution that is YouTube. Even Google had to buy YouTube out because there was almost no seeming way to halt the Web 2.0 juggernaut. Take away all the copyrighted material and some other guy from his garage will build his own Tube alternate and the cycle will go on. Why can’t Viacom understand that. But apparently, Viacom doesn’t seem to want that. Perhaps they want to channel viewership away from the computer screen and back to the living room TV.
As for Google, this is just one major headache that they should have prepared to face upon acquiring YouTube last year. Now that YouTube founders have also cashed in their $1.6B payment from the Google buyout, they can relax and enjoy swimming in their money.
As early as the word got out, this has been the buzz among netizens of Web 2.0. Many have benefited from YouTube, and no doubt I, as LifeSpy’s main blogger, have made use of the many great video tips posted there. I’m not totally siding with Google here, but I find Viacom’s decision one of an irate old-timer. Let’s face it. This is the age of Web 2.0. This is where we, the netizens, decide what’s hot and what’s not.
We should all know to value copyrights and intellectual property. However, in my own humble opinion, I think we even have to review the essence of copyright since we are dealing with the social phenomenon that is Web 2.0 here. It is the collaborative nature of information that is now emerging as a paradigm. How are we viewing copyright? Is it for attribution and credit for the proponent? Or a way to control and manage earnings from a product? We can’t avoid to rule out the money part here. Money talks. And $1B is a screaming amount.
Hey, has anyone sued MTV for ruining rock and roll? Haha.
Any takes on the matter?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий