Yes, this is old, but like Marie/Flackette and Todd, I’ve been busy (even shoveling snow here in SE Michigan). But that’s likely not why you’re here, so . . . for an update on the YouTube copyright saga, see here.
Now, in a logical and common sense world, in every decision we, clients and other corporations make, we weigh the positives and the negatives. The risks and the rewards. The opportunity costs. (There’s that social science theme again.)
Technically, I would agree that YouTube is in the wrong for allowing users to air copyrighted material from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart or David Letterman’s Top 10 Lists.
But, if unless those uncopyrighted, illegal re-broadcasts are taking money away from Viacom and the producers, portraying the particpants in a negative light, or otherwise doing some harm, what is the problem?
Could it be that these unauthorized re-broadcasts are cramping CBS’ own use of YouTube?
I’m no lawyer and am definitely open and eager to hear both sides of the argument. However, unless you can show where harm is being done, the only thing that these other YouTube broadcats — and similar unauthorized re-broadcasts/re-use of copyrighted material — are doing are giving more people more opportunity to hear, see and enjoy Viacom-owned material.
And, I would think, increase Viacom’s audience share. If there is harm done, then go after them. (I realize that, to protect a copyright, you have to try to prosecute everyone — even churches — but there has to be some common sense involved.)
Again, it is about using common sense, and weighing risks (such as possible negative publicity, even though you are legally right) with rewards (obtaining evangelists for your brand).
– Mike
