Viacom and NBC aren’t content with suing YouTube and other video sites for copyright infringement – they are also trying to inject their opinions into other lawsuits that they are not otherwise involved in.
Last week Viacom and NBC petitioned to file a document known as an Amicus Brief in a little known case between Veoh and an online porn site called IO Group. Amicus briefs are a way for people or entities not involved in a given case to let the court know what they think – they are usually filed by those who have some interest in the outcome of a case because it affects their business in some way. Courts often welcome them because they amount to free research and can be used to help them come to a decision.
Does this mean Veoh can soon add Viacom and NBC to the growing list of companies they are fighting in court? Probably not. Veoh is fighting to keep the brief out of the court’s hands, but is also making it clear that they don’t want to end up with new litigation with Viacom and NBC. In fact, the two companies continue to negotiate on a distribution deal. Veoh CEO Steve Mitgang says:
This is a critical juncture for both service providers and content holders and, ultimately, users. We do not see Viacom’s brief as an indication of lack of interest to work with us; in fact, all of our conversations withthem and other studios have become increasingly positive. That said, we do think this move reflects the importance of our case to the studios and the industry.
The cases being litigated now are crucial in determining what level of freedom video sites have in letting their users upload and distribute content. Content owners are not happy with the protections provided under the DMCA – they want video sites to be far more proactive in stopping uploads in the first place. The outcome of these cases will guide how much freedom these video sites have to continue current practices, and ultimately determine the value of these companies down the road.
These companies have a huge stake in the future of online video–and it’s now, when all of it is being decided in the courts–when NBC and Viacom need to be a part of what’s being decided (in order for them to get their way.
You’re right, the cases being litigated now are crucial in determining what level of freedom video sites have in letting their users upload and distribute content–and since NBC and Viacom’s future revenue may depend on what happens in the courts now, it’s critical for them to be a part of all this.
Can’t wait to see how this one turns out. I smell disaster.
Among all the crap these companies create, they have some great content. Two things:
1. They should let the users use that content in way more open way.
2. They should be focusing on how to monetarize the content they have, not going to court rooms, etc.
It’s not the casette recorders or compact disc times anymore. And it will be never be again.
An inflection point for the content economy, to be sure.
Content creators and rights holders have earned the right to set rules of use for their content that go beyond “Fair Use”.
With few exceptions, “Fair Use” is very subjective. The industry needs tools that provide this objectivity and stimulate a marketplace where DMCA notices and litigation are last resort options.
They have a right to be paid for their content instead of people using it free and making money from it. Next thing you folks want is McDonalds being required to give you a Big Mac everyday……….FREE. Hey I have a thought for Arrington, how about free advertising on the front page of TC. Is that a 2.0 right as well? LOL
Dominic (#5), even if McBarf handed out free food, I still wouldn’t eat that crap. regarding the article Michael wrote, they spent money producing said content, I don’t see a reason why they wouldn’t be compensated for it’s use, no matter the origin. They have a case and “fair use” is just too open ended a definition considering the evolution of the internet (everything can be considered fair use these days).
Jon
Jon – “fair use” can absolutely be demystified with the right technology. (Disclosure – I work for Attributor which is one of the companies providing this technology)
Here are the 4 factors to be considered in considering fair use:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Where technology can/will help . ..
#1 – Detectable- if the site is commercial or not. You can also
#2 – Subjective, but pretty intuitive and lots of precedent here
#3 – Detectable – % re-used or number of words/frames copied can be calculated.
#4 – Detectable – requires some assumptions, but there is publicly available web traffic and CPM data, not to mention research quantifying the SEO impact of being bumped down in organic search results as a result of splogger or other unauthorized use
Veoh shouldn’t be left alone fighting theses dinosaurs .
Veoh should approach Google as the decision of the court will impact them all.
Its in Google interest to help Veoh and support it by any means to win this case.
Why is big media company always attack Google?
I keep hearing. Viacom & NBC will terminate Google’s video and youtube.
You forgot to add comma: “Viacom and NBC aren’t content with suing YouTube, and other video sites for copyright infringement”.
My god! So many attack, but I like google
I guess Google have lot of enemies. Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Viacom, NBC, etc… They keep suing Google. They want their startup innovations.
Jon,
I think you’re absolutely right about the 4 fair use factors you listed above, but I disagree with your assessment of what would be involved in determining #3 and #4.
With regard to amount/substantiality, this is difficult to quantify – frames or words may be irrelevant IMO because it depends on the content. A 4 minute SNL skit or segment from the Daily Show is not the same as a 4 minute clip from say, The Sopranos. You don’t need to see every skit during an SNL episode to enjoy each of them independently, but you might not get very much use out of a single segment of The Sopranos to the extent that it might— in a segue to #4–result in lost revenue on the part of the content producer.
As far as the impact on the potential market is concerned, this is essentially impossible to establish. There are many,many video distribution platforms to consider within every country or region: linear TV, DVR viewing, on-demand viewing, DVDs, off-network syndication, theatrical release, pay cable, BitTorrent, Youtube and similar sites, Amazon, iTunes, etc etc. It is very difficult to determine the effect of a single platform on another. Do people want to streeam/consume video, or do they want to own it, or both? In other words, if you’ve seen a movie in the theater do you buy the DVD because you liked it, or refuse to buy the DVD because you’ve already seen it? Good luck quantifying that… it’s a lot more complicated than evaluating impact on PageRank!
I wish these companies would focus on developing methods to distribute the content that makes everyone happy instead of wasting time and energy on lawsuits.
Jake,
I think you meant me
Overall, it seems like we are on the side of this issue, but let me clarify my responses to #3 and #4
with #3 the content/rights owner would register the sources, either as individual skits or entire episodes, depending on how they want to value. The system can tell them what % was re-used and give some insight into the amount copied. Not perfect, but it allows the content owners to dismiss mashups lasting just a few seconds and rank 4 minute SNL skit reuse over Sopranos.
I agree that #4 is more problematic, but I would argue that many of the sites you mention can be grouped (streaming vs downloading) and costs estimated. By no means perfect, but rights holders have no scalable way to identify and group these today.
My point is that rights holders need an objective means to gain contextual understanding of how and where their content (not just video but text and images too) is being re-used . . . this will eliminate much of the distrust and pave the way for negotiated outcomes instead of litigated ones.
NBC and Viacom have done this before. What litigious meddlers.
Hello! motrin 800