Is the Google YouTube honeymoon over?

Is the Google YouTube honeymoon over?

Summary: Is the Google YouTube honemoon over?

SHARE:
2

UPDATE:  Who needs Google? CBS vs. Viacom vs. NBC

Readers of this Digital Markets Blog know I have been putting forth that the Google YouTube DMCA inspired content is free for the talking, unless proven otherwise, game could not continue indefinitely.

Amidst the Chad Hurley induced euphoria over supposed video wealth sharing last week, I underscored the reality of the Google YouTube content owner protection and compensation situation (see “Will YouTube ‘King Hurley’ really share video riches?”):

Policing copyright: Has YouTube really been proactive in protecting content owners' rights as Hurley claims? 

YouTube’s DMCA content modus operandi is inherently reactive and enables a “community” environment fostering the notion that video is free for the taking and uploading.

Where is YouTube’s audio fingerprinting technology that was promised for December 2006 (see “NBC to YouTube: Video removal request game to end”)?

Does Google not have the financial and technological resources to keep its copyright protection word?

In “Google’s YouTube: Who are the broadcasters?” I put forth:

Google is proud that it has “chosen to ignore conventional wisdom in designing its business.”

Perhaps it would be best for all parties involved, however, if $150 billion market cap Google started playing by good “old-fashioned” content licensing rules, instead of trying to skirt by on a DMCA and fair-use powered no-fee required content acquisition business model.

Viacom appears to agree.

Viacom sent a notice to YouTube today demanding the removal of more than 100,000 “pirated” video clips it retains the copyright to after a failure to reach a distribution agreement with YouTube, according to a report in Washingtonpost.com:

Filtering tools promised repeatedly by YouTube and Google have not been put in place, and they continue to host and stream vast amounts of unauthorized video," Viacom said in a statement….YouTube and Google retain all of the revenue generated from this practice, without extending fair compensation to the people who have expended all of the effort and cost to create it," said Viacom. Viacom added, "The recent addition of YouTube-served content to Google Video Search simply compounds this issue.

Some may characterize Viacom’s defense of its copyright ownership rights as “hardball” and dismiss as “negotiating tactics.”

Hardball? NO, business. Negotiating tactic? NO, demand for compensation due.

Viacom and all media properties must defend the business value of their content currently accruing to Google shareholders. They are required by law to do so for the benefit of their own shareholders.

ALSO: Who needs Google? CBS vs. Viacom vs. NBC and Is YouTube really a $1.65 billion Web 2.0 success? and YouTube: Is Viacom hurting innocent YouTubers?

Take the Poll: Google vs. Viacom: Good cop, bad cop?

Topic: Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

2 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Compare this to Napster

    Let's see, Napster broke the law by operating servers that index where to find copyrighted content on individuals' PCs.

    YouTube operates servers that not only index, but actually store and serve copyrighted content.

    Hard to see how YouTube thinks it has a leg to stand on. If Napster didn't qualify as a "service provider" under the DMCA, how can YouTube?
    PB_z
  • huh????

    This blog item is nearly in-decipherable. If that is a word.
    rad1956