Tag Archive

One of the points I make in a Newspaper Association of America article I just wrote is that print media doesn’t grasp culture of openness on the internet. Watch the video below for more:

What do you think? I think it brings up a lot of underlying issues between the old guard and the new folks.

An interesting article fell on top of my desk today. The WSJ reports:

Many [copyright] warnings “materially misrepresent U.S. copyright law, particularly the fundamental built-in First Amendment accommodations which serve to safeguard the public interest,” the complaint alleges. CCIA President Ed Black said the warnings create a “chilling effect,” dissuading consumers from using portions of the content in ways that are lawful.

The conflict illustrates the shifting concept of fair use in the digital age. “Fair use” of intellectual property revolves around the question of how much, if any, of movies, books, music and other creations can be used without permission of the owners. As Internet platforms have made it easier to redistribute chunks of content without asking for approval, copyright owners have become more protective about enforcing their rights.

So, Google, Microsoft and others are banding together to help consumers realize that they can reproduce a certain portion of copyrighted work. I think it’s pretty interesting that CCIA cares so much about warning labels. Warning labels mean very little in a world of easy access to copyrighted content. Are consumers really intimidated by something like this? I highly doubt it.

Update: And illegal music downloading is at an all time high… yes those labels really help.

Looks like NBC just joined ranks with Viacom against YouTube/Google. Who is next?  Anyone care to wager?  I’d put my money on News Corp.

CNet reports:

“Any ruling on YouTube’s motion will have far-reaching ramifications for the owners of video content,” NBC and Viacom said in their filing. “And especially for content owners such as Viacom and NBCU, whose works have been copied, displayed, and performed and disseminated by YouTube and others without their authorization.”

This case will result in a landmark ruling for industry.  Unfortunetly, we are going to wait several years until we hear anything.  In the meantime, I wonder if a technology solution will solve the problems asserted by content companies.

Google responded to the Viacom Suit today. I have already written about the disregard for copyright and how Google sees no value in content. My wise, attorney father posted a comment regarding the Viacom/YouTube suit. He explains:

The resolution of this suit will likely be a voluntary change in YouTube’s upload practices that will engage it in more vigilant policing of uploaded content. In particular, its policy of awaiting copyright owners’ demands before removing pirated material will predictably evolve into a more proactive undertaking to remove infringing material - at least that which is relatively obvious; TV programming, movie trailers, etc. However, it it is not an exact analogue of the Napster case in which Napster executives opined that its users were “…exchanging pirated music.”! YouTube was well aware of the Napster and Grokster fiascos before it, and apparently has given some thought to the potential for this kind of action - its copyright policy is, at least, well written, and if implemented in a more aggressive fashion would likely insulate it from the kind of direct and indirect liability alledged in the Viacom complaint. Its exposure lies in part in the very technology that enables the uploading, and exchange of video content because it also permits it to police the content more vigorously, and hence it will be forced to do so or suffer the fate of Napster and Grokster before it.

Perhaps Google’s new “policing tools” will solve this problem, but who knows. I haven’t found any intelligent commentary, but Google’s response does warrant a few words. It explains:

By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression.

The funny thing is technology can be used for illegal AND legal things. Maybe the “entitled generation” doesn’t believe this, but I honestly believe copyrighted works should be protected. The companies that create technologies which enable the easy sharing of content should be responsible for monitoring the use of that technology. Additionally, I firmly believe it is unethical to use technology to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted works to build a “destination site” like YouTube.

ZDNet has a good analysis of the rebuttals. Other bloggers are adding small bits of information.

The Washington Post reports that the EPIC is opposed to the Google acquisition of DoubleClick. The complaint is here. The Post reports:

The deal would create a firm with access to more information about consumers’ Internet activities than any other company in the world, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said in its complaint.

Google’s quest to organize the world’s information has created the most visited site in the world. Organizing information is a good idea.

Monetizing your use of the world’s information is a bad idea

I always tell people that Google created a great product. Google search is a great product. The problem is that Google serendipitously realized they could monetize their users with targeted advertisements. There is nothing wrong with making money. In fact, I like it when any company makes money. But let’s use our brains. Does irrational exuberance make people ignore simple rights?

Tracking users means more relevant, thus more valuable ads

In order to make more money, advertisers demand more relevant advertising prospects. Cookies, tracking, behavioral targeting, etc, are a way of online life. I don’t think Google/DoubleClick really means much more than before, but be aware that the more Google (or any agency) knows about your habits , the larger value proposition they can make to advertisers. Google is the leader in the online segment and will increasingly be under pressure to not actively analyze user habits.

Put this in perspective

For all the Google-aid drinkers out there, imagine if Microsoft would submit user information to their web servers every time you entered information into your computer. This certainly wouldn’t be allowed. As the computer world moves from desktop to browser, how would Google doing this on their online properties (and those also inhabited by DoubleClick) be any different?

What do you think?

Update: Matt Cutts writes about Google & privacy

Update2:  Financial Times writes about Google’s quest to organize your “personal life”

The LA Times reported:

‘If all the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do?’ [Same Zell] muses.

Not surprisingly, the blogging community went up in arms (1, 2, 3) with a resounding “Google is not stealing content” response. I think the responses represent the attitude problem that permeates the New Media world. I wasn’t at the Zell presentation, but I would wager that Zell is referring to the possibility of content licensing consortiums (CLCs) for the newspaper industry.

Reading through some of these responses, I found another great snippet of ill-informed entitlement:

Google moral of the story? Lawsuits ARE the way to pull Google’s very large financial purse strings!

Google has done a fantastic job building their search and advertising product off of freely supplied index-able web data; but online newspaper/magazine, video & audio content is protected by copyright. If Google settled with the AFP (and AP) aren’t they admitting to stealing content and the need to license that content from these associations? The answer is YES and the key is:

With the other major Internet players like AOL, Yahoo or MSN, [The AFP] have been licensing our content to them for years and years

Additionally, the argument that “Google does not make money off of Google News” is not correct. Sure, Google doesn’t place ads on the Google News page, but it is supplying a free service which creates a portfolio of services that keep users coming back to the Google platform.

Google News Provides a Value-Add for Newspapers, but it Walks a Fine Line

Google’s settlement with the AP and the AFP reveals that it would rather pay for content than face a full lawsuit. Zell is onto the CLC argument and if I were Google, I would fear the power of a $59 billion industry. I agree that Google improves newspaper article search-ability, but it needs to admit content has value so everyone can work together.

It is in Google’s best interest to work with the newspaper industry, because pretty soon a lot of large competitors and content providers will band together to better enforce copyright protection and licensing standards.

I read a good article featured on Slashdot about Mark Cuban and his view on YouTube/Copywrite issues.  I have argued that “the entitlement attitude represents an ill-respect for intellectual property.”

This attitude has to change.  Ars Technica explains:

Cuban argued forcefully that YouTube, like Napster before it, is training up an entire generation to think that “anything goes” in the realm of copyright, and that Google’s recent purchase of the company only gives their actions more legitimacy.

And, just like Napster, this is a copywrite issue.  As much as consumers want to pay nothing for content, they won’t get it.  Intellectual property, in any shape or form, has value and those who disregard it will inevitably lose in the courts.