Category: Copyright

Does video have a Napster problem?

C-Net is continuing their great coverage of the net video issue, today with an analysis of the copyright status of online video sharing. Although the law might not support them on this, they’re quite right in distinguishing between video downloads (through BitTorrent or eDonkey) and streaming services like Google Video and YouTube. Essentially, all of these services (including the BitTorrent creators) have gotten the message that it’s about control: if you can and do control what appears on your network (and respond to complaints), you’re in better shape under the law.

I would say that this gets at a crucial “common sense” issue in copyright law. Downloading a file that you can keep and listen to forever is significantly “more wrong” than viewing a clip which is streamed online. An arguable copyright analysis of this issue might be that downloading breaks the “copy” part of copyright, where streaming essentially only breaks the “distribution” right.
On a related note, one of the most popular illegal video downloads (the Daily Show and Colbert Report) have now been made for sale on the iTunes music store. This seems to me to be insane business sense: who will pay for news video which will be out of date tomorrow? I don’t think I would pay $2 for a video to watch only once. We will see if this brings a crack-down on Daily Show sharing (perhaps they can make their video streams a bit more accessible, if they do).

A Strange Twist?

C-Net News is reporting on how video on the web is being used in a new program on Bravo. I’m not sure why they didn’t address VH1’s similar effort, but the article addresses at least half of the big story here: the expansion of user-created video on the web may give large media companies an easy, free source of content.

For TV producers, it’s simply a cheap way to develop a show. In the classic model of programming production, content producers would invest a lot of money upfront to create a pilot show and test it with audiences. By patrolling the Internet, TV producers can draw on material that’s already proved popular with online audiences and put it on TV with comparatively little investment.

While those of us who are already watching most of our video online won’t be interested in these shows, perhaps some tempted by the possibility of fame will give their work away.

And this is the twist:

Certainly Bravo and VH1 would be quick to file a lawsuit if any of their content was used without authorization…would they be tempted to use a “great” video if they couldn’t track down the owner? An amature video creator wanting to defend the rights to their work may be no match for the deep pockets of a media corporation.

But why steal or pay for someone’s content, when you can get it in a contest? VH1’s WebJunk program has a contest where:

You could win a Digital Entertainment Center with Intel VIIV technology and the Aquos liquid crystal TV from Sharp!

So, according to the contest rules, anyone who enters (meaning compensated winners and unlucky losers) gives away their rights to MTV and IFilm (see clause 14).

Copyright was created to grant authors protection for their work, so that they can make a living off their creativity. The chance for abuse of creators in this case is too great to ignore.

YouTube and NBC

It looks as though NBC has been exerting their copyright control over one of my favorite sites YouTube.com. What makes YouTube such a neat place is that it’s a collection of all sorts of video (copyrighted and not) from around the world. In some ways, it acts as a repository or a gateway to a wide variety of video cultures (for example, Japanese music videos and television shows). The Times article points out one of the site’s benefits to copyright owners:

Several online commentators noted that NBC’s response to YouTube, while legally justified, may have been short-sighted. The online popularity of “Lazy Sunday” has been credited with reviving interest in “Saturday Night Live” at a time when it is in need of some buzz.

…

“We got e-mails from college students, and a lot of them said it’s the ‘Lazy Sunday’ clip that turned them on to potentially watching ‘S.N.L.’ again,” she said.

It is something to consider: relaxing control over one’s copyright holdings may actually bring in more revenue from an increased fan-base. I would think that this is what the people who originally posted the “Lazy Sunday” video would have agreed to. It’s essentially a nod saying, “hey, go check this out.” Statements such as this aren’t intended to bring harm to the creator (even though it may prevent a few $2 iTunes downloads), rather it’s perhaps an easy form of review/comment/criticism (which understandably is not protected under fair use).

More non-transferability

This site is reporting that Microsoft recently changed their Windows licensing agreement (EULA) to stipulate that a change of motherboard is equivalent to purchasing a new computer, thus requiring the consumer to purchase an additional Windows license. First, it’s tough to tell if this is actually true (no second independent source here) Edit: this has been an existing policy for OEM and educational license; here’s the google cache for the retail EULA which does not have this limitation.

However, this still provides an excellent example of purchasing a physical copyrighted work, and being left unable to fully exercise what seems to be reasonable (a computer upgrade) because of licensing. Someone buys a cd with a program on it (albeit at a discounted price) and then is legally bound not to do what they might have had if it were a music cd (selling it, making a backup, etc.). What rights should one have when they purchase a physical work? …and should this be distinguished from buying a digital work.
Interestingly enough, this post brought me somewhere I’ve never been before: the Microsoft Windows homepage. It’s interesting that there’s very little in the line of marketing (no feature lists or things like one finds on the Apple OS X homepage). I guess when you have a near monopoly 🙂