When two multinational conglomerates go head-to-head, it's always difficult to choose who to support. The new legal battle between Viacom and YouTube/Google is no different (more info here).
At Knowledge Politics we have very much been in favour of more openness in the intellectual property regime, butI don't think it's appropriate to look at this case in those terms. In fact, the case actually underlines the need for a new, more coherent IP framework appropriate for the digital age.
Basically, Viacom wants YouTube to stop people from publishing copyrighted material (i.e. from Viacom's television stations) on the internet without permission. YouTube's response is the "safe harbour" defence - that they are not responsible for material uploaded without their knowledge on the site. I cannot agree with the YouTube position - they implicitly admit that the practice is illegal (and morally wrong), and also admit that they provide the means through which the illegal act is committed. But they wash their hands of it by saying they just don't pay attention to the way people use the website.
There is no real public interest in 100 different people uploading the same clip from a television show. The people doing so - while not making any personal profit - are helping to undermine the risk-reward regime for broadcasters. Would anyone go to buy the Comic Relief DVD (benefiting performers, the BBC and many needy causes) after seeing Catherine Tate-Tony Blair sketch on the internet? I know I was desperate to see the sketch after hearing about it, and YouTube is the first place I looked. Sorry, Africa.
Maybe we should change the risk-reward regime. I'd certainly be up for that discussion. In fact, we're right in the middle of that discussion at Knowledge Politics (details here). YouTube, MySpace and similar sites have revolutionised the cultural industries. Performers who have no interest in protecting their copyright are finding they are able to reach new audiences, enhancing their potential to make a decent living out of their art in the future.
But there has to be some kind of coherent system for copyright protections. And I'd prefer it was a legal regime, because Viacom are threatening a technological solution: 'watermarking', which is similar to the dreaded digitial rights management system in music. We need to avoid this eventuality.
RB
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But you've obviosuly managed to pick a side - Viacom.
They don't need the money.
And Google do need the money? Because they're making enough of it, including from the business we're putting their way on this website.
As your friend Catherine Tate said, Am I Bothered? If people want to see what's on there, nothing should stop them. I doubt Viacom will go bankrupt, they'll just have to adapt.
Post a Comment