The news that YouTube is being sued by Viacom for $1bn is not really that surprising.
I’ve been frankly amazed at how YouTube has managed to operate when so much of its content is clearly copyright. I know that people like Jeff Jarvis will think that Viacom is shooting itself in the foot by bringing this action but if you’re a copyright owner, you can’t sit idly by while someone else profits from your art. ([UPDATE] He does indeed think that it’s a “boneheaded” move.)
I love YouTube, I really do. It’s great that if someone says “Did you see Joss Stone make a fool of herself at the Brits” you can go to YouTube and find it. Of course, it’d be smart if ITV posted those clips on its own site and driving traffic there – perhaps allowing you to post it on your own website and creating the social network that YouTube has built. But if ITV or whoever the copyright owner is doesn’t want to do that, that’s their right.
Until now, media owners were effectively being held hostage by YouTube. Why should they have to put manpower and resources on a daily basis into removing videos that have been uploaded to the site with no concern to copyright?
If I replicated YouTube and let people upload mp3s irrespective of who created it (of course I’d ask them to make sure that it wasn’t copyright), then I’d expect to be sued to within an inch of my life by the record companies. That’s what happened to Napster, and Audiogalaxy. Video or audio, it makes no difference.
Now, I doubt that YouTube, or rather Google, is actually earning any cash out of the business at the moment since they have to be careful about placing ads near these videos, and streaming costs are likely to be extortionate. But that’s not to say that this isn’t costing Viacom money. I know that if I want to watch a clip from last night’s Daily Show, I can get it simply and easily on YouTube (at least I could until a few weeks ago). I could also have gone to Comedy Central where Viacom earns revenue from those clips. And loss of traffic equals loss of revenue.
Google/YouTube has effectively been a bully, with attempts at revenue sharing and a dominant market position so that “if you’re not on YouTube you’re nowhere.” Well that’s got to be the copyright owner’s choice. The BBC might agree to make clips available on YouTube, but it can also ensure that the clips are ones it has chosen, and that their full programmes aren’t available. That’s their choice.
Anyway, I’ve no doubt that this case will take months if not years to sort out, and Google will eventually lose. Mark Cuban’s blog is going to be worth reading too.