Leading article: History repeating itself
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Print
Email
There can be little doubt that the American media giant Viacom, which is suing YouTube for breach of copyright, has a strong case. Anyone who has even briefly visited the popular video-sharing website will know that there is a mass of legally protected television content there, all of it freely available at the click of mouse.
Yet in its pursuit of this case, Viacom has blundered into the treacherous terrain of internet privacy. The media company has this week persuaded an American court to order YouTube to hand over details of who has been watching video clips on its site. In resisting Viacom, Google, YouTube's parent company, thus finds itself in the unusual position of standing up for the privacy of its users.
There is an irony here because Google itself stands accused of breaching personal privacy through its Street View program, which is being extended to include some British cities. This program matches photos of locations to Google's online maps. The problem is that the pictures often capture the faces of passers-by. The pressure group Privacy International is threatening to report the internet leviathan to the UK Information Commissioner unless remedial action is taken. This follows a row about Google's email system, which scans messages for key words and displays "relevant" adverts to the user. Sensitive though such issues are, Viacom's legal action could provoke a far greater outcry.
Viacom should reconsider its demand for all this information. The firm argues that it needs the details of viewers to support its $1bn legal claim. But Viacom risks a far more expensive public relations disaster if it persists. Furthermore, though it could probably defeat YouTube in the courts, other websites would soon spring up where protected content could be shared.
Television companies would do better to accept that the market has changed. The simple reality is that people can share video content online just as easily as music files. Wise television companies will embrace the technology, rather than attempting to resist it. File-sharing sites could be an effective way to promote the wares of traditional broadcasters. Some, such as the BBC, have already gone down this route.
The music industry spent many years and a small fortune going after the online file-sharers, only to be forced to overhaul its business strategy anyway. Do the television companies really want to repeat history?
Anyone? I've been using YouTube for a long time, and I've never seen pirated material there. What I have seen is a lot of very creative stuff, including ads for independent productions such as "Iron Sky". That I haven't seen pirated content there doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course. But I suspect that it's a small amount of the content available, based on my own experiences.
As to your statement about Viacom having a strong case, are you a lawyer or a judge? If you aren't, you don't have the training to be able to evaluate the strength of the case, and shouldn't make such a statement. Another possibility is that you work for Viacom, or someone who works for them, and if so you should state this. I don't see any attribution on the article, so I don't know who wrote it, but please in future get the details right.
Posted by Wayne | 06.07.08, 07:54 GMT
The loser here is the western world citizen who wants to have freedom to pick the things he/she reads, and watches. There are pro and con to liberty, but the need for Viacom to pull this event is probably tied to profit, exposure, or both. The bigger upset is the freedom that were originally set up in America, are being stripped away for corporate posturing.
For a judge to strip away privacy, disregards that judge's understanding for privacy.
The second Google case; regarding their 'street view program' is only a petty complaint. Removing this program is the SAME thing as taking all photos off the internet which show historic landmarks and vistas.
These very expensive court cases are manipulations on the part of the companies to gain things for their own good, not the protection of the people. They are proof that the US Judicial System and the US Congress are lacking knowledge to make sensible decisions based on modern technology
We are back to Salem Witch trials & a Police State
Posted by AriGoldstein | 05.07.08, 15:58 GMT
It isn't really that strong a case. As with any site where the content is created by its users, Youtube is only legally culpable is they don't delete the infringing material when they find out about it.
Posted by Alex | 05.07.08, 04:31 GMT
I am boycotting Viacom if this goes through. It's a sickening display of corporate power over America.
Things like this don't generally upset me, but this really does.
Posted by groose | 05.07.08, 02:06 GMT