So I’ve been debating in my mind the whole lawsuit between Viacom and Google wondering who has the best interest of all involved; ie the public, copyright holders etc. If you read a lot of the online comments and forums surrounding this discussion you’ll find that a majority favors Google and want content to be literally “free” for everyone. In a way I can understand that train of thought because after all we’ve all been taught to believe that “if it’s on the internet, it’s free”.
Many people argue that Viacom is shooting itself on the foot because having their content on YouTube is free publicity. They could get more people subscribing to their shows by having these clips available on the web. The same argument has been made about music and music industry. But what if the person who owns the rights on a particular video (or music) doesn’t want to put his/her up for free? Sure maybe it’s not a smart marketing strategy, but let say they have personal reasons for this. Why should they be forced to have their product shown or listened to on the web?
A good friend of mines who is a singer did a video a couple of years ago for a particular local charity. I asked him once why he didn’t put the video up on YouTube. I told him it would help get the word out about his music and maybe get some gigs in the process. He told me that this video was something he specifically did to help the charity as a way to generate donations. He as well as the producer had agreed that they wouldn’t publicize it in a way that they felt would minimize their efforts. In other words, they felt that YouTube and other online video sites would commercialize their work, and just didn’t want to offer it in any way, shape or form for free.
It was up to the charity how they would distribute this product and they all decided that if anyone wanted a copy of it, they would have to pay for it and all the proceeds would go to the charity. A few months ago while talking to my friend he mentioned how the video somehow got out onto the web and how disappointed everyone was that something that they felt personally connected to was now public property.
My point is that while we maybe fighting for the rights to keep the internet as free of too much legislature, we need to also respect the request of those people who actually “Own” the content. If these people choose not to have their videos or music on the web, we should respect that. No matter how “out of touch with the times” the rest of us might think they are. Companies that can’t control the videos, music, software or any other protected media from appearing on their sites without the owner’s permission, should be appropriately penalized.
I believe that there definitely needs to be a new look at our copyright laws, but we should never relinquish the rights of those who create and own that content. Copyright holders should be allowed to make their own decisions of what should be free online and what should not. After all it is their content and products.
