Its hard to know if the recent acquisition by Google represents a strategy in desperation or one where everyone will look back and recognize this as a turning point for Google. What it does, is it surely signals that Google believes in the power and significance of online video and social networking – and that to Google, that future is worth 1.65 billion dollars.
What remains to be seen is exactly how Google plans to solve all of the copyright issues YouTube is saddled with. Much like Yahoo and its acquisition of Overture some years ago, the purchase of Google (although IANAL) probably means its also acquired the outstanding liabilities as well.
Mark Cuban has ranted at length about these issues, even so far as to paint a fairly outlandish picture of lawyers creating videos for the express purpose of opening up a lawsuit against YouTube GooTube.
Some of mentioned that all of the bajillions of copyright violations are probably ok, as they fall under the DCMA “safe harbor” provisions.
I wouldn’t count on it.
Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder’s complaint.
In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must:
- have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, the infringing activity
- provide proper notification of its policies to its subscribers
- set up an agent to deal with copyright complaints
Well, seeing as YouTube directly benefits from ad-revenue from the traffic generated by uploaded copyrighted material, and are about as fast as a sloth swimming in molasses when it comes to removing access to the material, its hard to see how it WOULD be protected by the safe harbour protection.
It’ll be interesting to see where this takes the blogosphere and internet at large.
Oops — Looks like Mark Cuban *has* weighed in and hopes that the legal poppy won’t fly so everyone can benefit from all the copyright violated goodness. Entrepreneurs included.