This is the headline that you get for browsing a Video that was taken down by Viacom’s recent takedown action.
The news that Google and Viacom don’t get along has been reported over extended periods of time and Viacom has successfully ordered YouTube to remove Video’s that are infringing to Viacom in some way.
I certainly don’t disagree that materials under copyright or trademark that are published without permission should be removed. YouTube is full of videos which are not legitimately licensed and Google acknowledges as much in trying to fight that in various public statements and actions they have (or will take).
Recently I was looking for a Video to show to a friend that I very much enjoyed for its humour - an 11+ minute parody called Ultimate Utopia (a pun on Final Fantasy) featuring, at that time, a bunch of teenagers making a really funny video for those that have played any kind of Japanese made RPG Videogame and are familiar with the subject (especially with the Final Fantasy series). When I first watched this, almost a year ago, I believe it had almost a 600,000 views from various online channels put together (but I might be wrong, but whatever the number, it was a lot).
That Video was pulled with the message below saying:
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.
This was also confirmed by the creators website that he received a notification, which appeared to have come from YouTube that the material was pulled due to 3rd party notification of an infringement against Viacom International, Inc.
The author makes a point that he believes of all the companies, Viacom makes the least sense and he was not told why it was an infringement just “that it was” and therefore it’s gone now.
For those of you who have seen this parody, I agree that I don’t understand why Viacom has an issue with this. If Square Enix has a problem with it, I can understand why (although I still probably wouldn’t agree with it.). The Lightsabre sequence may raise an eyebrow with the Star Wars Franchise, some scenes possibly with people in the Bollywood scene, but Viacom?
Quite separate from the issue that the kind of work that Ultimate Utopia was would have probably fallen under the Fair use doctrine and would have likely not infringed any rights, the fact that the Video was pulled so rapidly does make you wonder. The EFF posted a Video on YouTube recently about being unfairly caught by Viacom’s legal dragnet and also issued a press release on this.
Take a look at this video yourself and see, what was so infringing for a bunch of teenagers in ragged home made costumes, waving around sticks with an amateur video camera and some amateur special FX out of a desktop computer, poking fun at a very successful Video Game that was not even made by Viacom?
What was the motive of Viacom have pulled off a harmless parody of a Video Game that Viacom has no (known) affiliation with?
Why did YouTube pull the Video without proper explanation, giving the author time to respond to the allegations that were made? That Video is still available from other people via YouTube anyway, although the viewcount is much lower and it probably doesn’t matter since it’s become insignificant. Another 100,000 Videos were pulled including one entitled Sunday Nite Dinner at Redbones Mass, the link also includes the original copyright notice received.
Maybe this is all just an honest mistake, but even if that is the case, therein lies the problem.
Censorship has just been practised and if it was a mistake, innocent bystanders were hurt for no reason whatsoever. Worse, if it was not a mistake (i.e. the Video was deliberately targetted) then this is even more concerning. Where do you draw that line?
For Viacom (and similar media) this encourages them to go after ALL sorts of Hobby videos that may even have as much as a highly improbably case of copyright violation or in some cases are not related at all. The YouTube Channel as it is sometimes referred to is taking away viewer time, so why not try and remove as many successful Videos on YouTube and similar services? Copyright or not, if you can scare people to stop producing derivative works, parodies or even unrelated media providing less content that could possibly drive people away from their own Channels then this is a Victory of a different kind to Viacom. Afterall, once you pull 100,000 Videos, and Viacom admitted to making a “few mistakes”, let’s say 5% that’s still 5,000 Videos which would be reinstanted, the more likely scenario is that the other tens of thousands of Videos would be gone. Viacom so far has admitted to 60 mistakes.
More importantly however, those that were successul with high viewcounts that were original works would have lost their status as “highly viewed, highly rated” videos which is currency of its own. Successful creations encourages more creation and more viewership. Viacom has just managed to take that away from them, even if the Videos will “live on” in the virtual world. They have just successfully struck back at the Independent Artists who don’t need or want the likes of Viacom to succeed.
For services such as YouTube this is a big loss too, it is a loss for the creator and the consumer who enjoys this sort of production. Google should not have allowed for this to happen this way, proper notifications with explanations should have been sent out and the Video should only have been taken down after the author has had an opportunity to appeal. This approach was guilty before proven innocent. If Google/YouTube simply submits without question it could possibly erode the faith of its users and could hurt the arguably already unstoppable user generated content movement.
Is this really about Copyright? If this truly the case then why not try and pull out this (and other Videos) in all the other services? How many are really prepared to stand up and fight against this kind of action, even if it is deeply unfair? Many of these kind of hobby creators wouldn’t want to fight with a Giant like Viacom, afterall in most of these cases it’s not about the money because there isn’t any! Distribution of media, thanks to the Internet and services like YouTube has become cheap, and the barrier to entry low. The doomsday scenario is that by introducing a powerful legal equation (and cost) the barrier to entry has just risen, probably just enough to discourage your average hobby creator to publish his work via the Internet.
A recent commentary from Philippe Dauman, CEO of Viacom in a ZDNet blog post stated:
We are very pleased to have more traffic now since we took down our content from YouTube on our own site because we are able to monetize that for our own pockets as opposed to having somebody else monetize at our expense.
I suppose more traffic includes Videos not related to Viacom as well, afterall, if there is less content (and consequently less choice) with distribution channels that have high barriers to entry for your independent artist and creator, we can go back to the way we used to watch media and buy music, that would be nifty for the likes of Viacom wouldn’t it?







March 11th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Viacom vs. YouTube
an interesting commentary on Viacom vs. YouTube….
…
March 11th, 2007 at 6:29 am
[…] This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by … The news that Google and Viacom don?t get along has been reported over extended periods of time and Viacom has successfully ordered YouTube to remove Video?s that are infringing to Viacom in some way. I certainly don?t disagree that … […]
March 11th, 2007 at 9:01 am
[…] A long but interesting post on the taking down of a fan based video which also happens to be one that I like a lot as well. […]
March 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
So . . . what are content owners supposed to do? If you accept that Viacom is allowed to take down its own material and that YouTube has done nothing about protecting it, then Viacom obviously has to do the best it can. Viacom took a pretty careful look, in my view, if its error rate was less than 0.1% and since there doesn’t seem to be a lot of real “fair use” claims - just some out and out errors that have nothing to do with Viacom content. If YouTube were more careful with what is uploaded (easy to do with readily available filtering software, like audible magic), then Viacom wouldn’t be put in the position of needing a massive takedown, and innocent users would all be safer.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:06 am
[…] While previous arguments have always been focused on the issue of Viacom and the copyright fight, this post makes a hypothetical case that the bigger pictures is not about Copyright, but about defending a way of doing business (meaning traditional media) that is perhaps becoming outdated. It’s a fight for eyeballs and attention, if you can diminish traffic from the competition you end up winning somehow. […]
March 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Pixelm,
I agree with you that there is a dilemma. Some certainly might argue that YouTube owes much of its growth to materials that are actually under Copyright, in a sort of Kazaa and Grokster sort of way although less pronounced. I don’t disagree that YouTube can do more, but this wasn’t about as much about YouTube then it was the approach that could just terminate the flow of information generated by others for the benefit of others, where does it stop? Will a major publisher go after popular blogs citing copyright, infringement or other forms of written text and ask blogger to shut down 100,000 blogs?
The comment about 0.1% error margin is not appropriate in my view (and it’s probably much more than that, for starters the Video I discovered was not on that 0.1% error margin because the author wasn’t really prepared to put up a fight anyway, why risk it? Although I have no further evidence I think there are a lot more people out there). I am sure the EFF will have some statistics to report on this later on.
The point about an error margin is the approach of saying, let’s kill it first, then figure out where we made our mistakes after the fact. You’re a casualty first before because it was deemed acceptable to have innocent bystanders get caught in the maelstorm of a war…this kind of argument sounds all too familiar. It wasn’t that they analyzed each offense, as the EFF press release quotes an RIAA spokes person: “when you go fishing with a driftnet, sometimes you catch a dolphin.”
I’m sure all these Tunafishers from 20 years ago would have loved that if that was deemed acceptable.
A more measured response could have been to provide notice to the users, allow them the opportunity to explain and defend, don’t threaten them and, say, after 30 or 60 days of a non-response maybe then have it removed.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:18 am
The question of what Viacom is supposed to do against copyright infringement is irrelevant to this discussion.
The only potential item of copyright infringement in the Ultimate Utopia video is the cheap and tinny soundtrack, which is possibly taken from Final Fantasy. The brief lightsaber segment (as well as virtually every other element of this video) is not an infringement because it fails miserably under the fair use doctrine: the video in question is transformative (a parody) rather than derivative, it is of a clearly non-commercial nature, and it has zero effect on the copyright owner’s ability to exploit the original work.
Fishing for tuna and catching dolphins is exactly what is going on here, and it reflects incredibly poorly on Viacom - among other things, one has to question the intelligence of their decisions. Unless Viacom wakes up and restrains the trigger-happy old media managers responsible for this situation, it will discover rather painfully that if you have lice a hammer is the last thing you should be reaching for.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I have a hard time believing that quote from Philippie Dauman — that the Viacom site is generating more video views than YouTube. It just doesn’t seem likely.
I’m slightly amused by Viacom’s situation, and their choice for resolving it. Millions of people are watching their content, and their solution is to make it so these people can no longer view Viacom content. Why not convert them to “paying” customers (or, pay-generating ones, anyway?) CBS seemed to have a smarter response.
Viacom and MTV just seem a little lost on the web. Shelly Palmer wrote a good analysis of this recently, on Media 3.0:
http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/emmyadvancedmedia/2007/03/mtvs_new_web_st.html
By coming so late to the game, they are at a serious disadvantage. Is all hope lost for MTV?
Wouldn’t bother me too much.
- Jesse
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Google vs. Viacom Round 2
Google finally responds by denying all that what Viacom accused them of which I posted a bit about before.
A fairly complete report exists here. I don’t think anybody expected Google to just sit back and take it, certainly not when Viacom is …