Youtube vs. Viacom: Grow up!

First off, you should know that I hate copyright fundies. Back in the earlier days of the internet, there were alot less graphic designers and such posting their crap on the internet. One of the more famous online designers discovered someone in New York selling prints of their graphic design work on posters, obviously without their permission. They raged all over the internet about it. The designer never intended to sell them on the street. So technically, they’re not losing any money, because they’re not even in the market. If anything, the street vendor in new york was making that designer’s work more famous and recognizable. It was like a moving billboard walking around New York.

This is where Youtube v. Viacom comes in:

People uploaded videos of their favorite songs. Also, people uploaded videos of their favorite songs with lyrics. (I’ve guessed that these lyric songs have been part of a marketing scheme for a while. I don’t know many people who are so bored out of their minds that they make a karaoke video by hand) Youtube claims they have proof that Viacom has been secretly uploading videos to promote their artists, then begged Youtube to take them down, then asked Youtube to put them up again, because they realized it was part of a marketing operation. I wonder if someone over at Viacom is either a nutjob or the marketing and legal departments are on opposite sides of the building. That would explain alot. Why walk all the way over to the other side of the building when you could sue somebody? Seems plausible.

When the songs were uploaded, Viacom’s traffic went up. I can’t verify the traffic came from Youtube alone, but I do have a nifty chart.

I know the justice system doesn’t work like this – but let’s look at it from an economic standpoint. This entire time Youtube has been making some paltry profits from videos. Viacom’s been reaping free marketing off Youtube, and tugging at them like a 5-year-old to put their videos down then up, and then begging to buy Youtube. They basically got a free marketing campaign out of this, which is hard to value. Viacom also made money from Youtube’s ContentID program which allows them to monetize their copyrighted work no matter who uploads it. Either way, everyone made money.

So what now?
A frivolous lawsuit really, because I think out of all the websites out there, Youtube really bends over backwards for copyright owners. And they really shoudn’t. Art, Music, Comedy – all of these things are free. Yes, you can monetize them, but you can’t own what they are. If I hear a joke on TV I can easily turn around and entertain a friend with that same joke – word for word.

My bottom line – I’m not anti-copyright ownership, I’m against it ruling our lives. It should be legal to ask things to be taken down – but it’s not a provider’s responsibility to screen all it’s content. I also think economic sense should be used – like the designer who’s work was being sold (and further made the designer famous), and Ellen who popularizes music to her fans being sued by record labels.

“If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence”.
John Oswald