By now, you’ve heard several weeks of very public announcements and recriminations between copyright holders and the website owners who use their copy-written content without permission. The key offender to date has been YouTube which has ‘earned’ a $1 Billion lawsuit from Viacom, producers of such hit cable networks as Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, MTV and many others.

The non-Internet-reading public may have thought that everyone would be on-board with Viacom, and support its legal efforts. As the story goes, it’s Viacom’s content, they own it and should be compensated for it accordingly. Comments on Liz Gannes’ story on NewTeeVee’s even support this belief.

But, some in the blogosphere appear sympathetic to the YouTube position including VC Fred Wilson’s thoughts as quoted by Senior Editor of Linux Journal, Doc Searls on Doc’s blog:

“I for one hope that this suit doesn’t settle. I want to see Viacom prove the ‘massive and intentional copyright violations’ accusations in front of a jury of reasonable people.”

At first glance, one might think Mr. Wilson believes YouTube can’t be held liable here for anything ‘massive’ because it supplies only the site - the users are the ones adding the content, after all - it’s their fault. Is this the conundrum for Web 2.0 companies?: Supply the tools for sharing and community, and hope that your community doesn’t get you in trouble with the law?

Perhaps, Mr. Wilson is suggesting that a new ‘law’ appears to be taking hold in the public that allows for creative expression by the end user - in the form of sharing content even if it has a copyright.

Aner Ravon on IPnions Beyond Just Coverage raises a few interesting questions to Viacom such as, “Do you realize what kind of damage this may cause to the MTV brand among young people who actually love music?” The theory is that the MTV crowd enjoys watching its YouTube music videos and MTV fare on YouTube. If it isn’t there, it will negatively impact the perception of MTV as a place for young people to soak in their media.

Gazon might be correct… but I’m not sure that sunk the record labels post-Napster, for example -nor should it sink MTV. The labels sunk themselves by not keeping up with new media and the record buying public’s move to the Internet. The labels needed - and still need to - think of themselves as advertisers and understand what their target demographic wants (the Internet) and needs (freedom, sharing, music). MTV continues to keep its fingers on their demographic’s collective pulse despite recent blunders with new, engaging programming available for free through MTV-branded, ad supported websites that continue to attract a rapidly expanding audience.

Ironically, a few relatively young companies such as software giant Microsoft have changed their original stance. The Redmond, Washington giant appears to have had a change of heart (read: ‘become old’ according to Tech Dirt) in comparison to its earlier declaration about removing patent restrictions.

Is Microsoft ready for its AARP card? The rant by Microsoft General Counsel, Brad Smith, details the change of heart regarding patents and copyright violations on Cnet.

Mike Masnick at Tech Dirt says, “When you’re young you need to innovate; when you’re old you need to litigate.” Has innovation ground to a halt at Microsoft?

Where it all ends up, it’s hard to say. But, it’s going to be interesting, and the lawyers should be quite happy in the end. If Larry Dignan is right, this is just the beginning of the avalanche of lawsuits to come.

Tags: copyright infringement, youtube, microsoft, doc searls, viacom, aarp, google, cnet

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.