Viacom profits from exposure, so why sue?

Viacom v. Google/YouTube, also known as executives versus college students and hip people the world over, has reached a boiling point.

The billion-dollar copyright infringement case hinges on the very issues that make the Internet so troubling for profit-chasing executives: Where are the lines that separate creativity from mindless imitation, and imitation from theft?

As it stands, media production conglomerates should not be so brazen as to expect others to finance and undertake management of their material; they should instead take increased measures to keep their content out of the wrong hands before they end up on sites like YouTube.

To hold YouTube in a villainous light is not only a shortsighted decision on the part of Viacom, but also irresponsible.

At first glance, however, Viacom’s concerns may be justified.

In just eight days, the most popular American Idol finale clip on YouTube was viewed over 929,000 times. Fox and News Corp are probably upset.

That does not mean reason is not on their side though. Consider that American Idol fans are far less likely to watch a single clip than an entire episode ““ or even a full season, and what is called a copyright infringement might actually be a free profit-engendering dream.

Just how much less likely? The show itself snagged 32 million viewers, according to the Washington Post. That makes the YouTube viewers a mere 2.9 percent of the combined total of viewers (TV and YouTube).

Granted, this is just one clip in a sea of many. Regardless, it is perfectly clear that companies are not exactly hurting; Viacom (owner of much of television, from the Sundance Channel to Comedy Central to every MTV outfit to Paramount Pictures) reported an 80 percent profit climb in the third quarter of last year, bringing in $641.6 million.

Though there can be no clear causation drawn, it is plausible ““ if not likely ““ that YouTube hysteria over popular junk actually helps networks like Fox draw viewers to their shows, much in the way that videos of Barack Obama brushing dirt off his shoulder brings thousands to the political arena.

A BusinessWeek.com piece correctly noted that the lawsuit is not actually interested in the nature of copyrights or the possibility of preventing any protected content from ever being posted.

“All the arguing is over who should be responsible for paying for the policing,” argues writer Catherine Holahan. “Google says it doesn’t have to pay under the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) rules as written. Google is probably right.”

Viacom is the company with materials that are easily pilfered and transferred; they should invest in available technology such as file fingerprinting or watermarking.

Such technology would not only make their files safer, but also assist YouTube in removing content that is re-posted by many users ““ they would only have to search for a similar fingerprint across their network without being given individual take-down notices by companies.

YouTube is an active compliant in copyright infringement cases ““ it even employs a three-strikes rule for users and offers easy avenues for claims to be made.

Alex Jeffries, a second-year prospective film student, has firsthand experience with YouTube’s efforts to act on copyright infringement. He scored a compilation of video clips from a trip to Santa Barbara with “Moonshine” by Jack Johnson.

“Within a day of posting the video, I received an e-mail (from YouTube) telling me that an ad would be placed on my video because I used copyrighted material,” said Jeffries.

In other words, his so-called “copyright infringement” resulted in free advertising for the company that was so threatened by his media.

Expecting Google to shoulder all the cost of policing the Internet is like throwing valuables on the sidewalk and holding “society” liable for any ensuing thefts.

Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone has been quoted as saying that the company’s lawsuit has not only served Viacom’s interests, but also “the interests of everyone who owns copyrights they want protected.”

In reality, the lawsuit serves the interest of money-sucking media giants who would rather flex their corporate muscles than shoulder the responsibility of protecting their own content.

Still watching Bill O’Reilly explode on YouTube? E-mail Makarechi at kmakarechi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *