"The Law is a[n] ass". So quipped Mr. Bumble is Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. True, sometimes the law is an ass. But more often than not it's persons insisting on their legal rights who are the true asses. And copyright infringement is all too often a fine example of this. While I think many aspects of the law on copyright are asinine (such as the tendency for ever increasing length of copyright protection), I actually think the legal recognition of some form of copyright is a sensible thing. Given a choice, I'd much rather live in a world with copyright protection (albeit often far too asinine in its particulars) than in a world with no copyright protection whatsoever.
But how often have you clicked on a link to a youtube video only to find the video replaced with a copyright infringement notice? And how frustrating is this? As an example of this consider my earlier blog post on rugby's "bloodgate" scandal. When I originally composed that essay I posted a link to a video of the incident with commentary in French. After posting that I came across a better video of the incident (this time with commentary in English). Now, however, the second video (the one with commentary in English) has been removed by youtube at the request of the copyright holder. If you click on that link you will get the following message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by British Sky Broadcasting, Ltd."
In a sense that's fair eno
ugh. If someone has posted a video containing copyrighted material and done so without the copyright holder's consent then (subject to exceptions in the law about fair dealing / fair use) the copyright holder undoubtedly has the legal right to have it removed. So of course I'm not denying a copyright holder the right to insist that youtube remove videos posted there without the copyright holder's consent. What I am objecting to is the point of the exercise of this (undoubted) legal right. Just because you're free to take a particular course of action doesn't mean you should. There are lots of things we are free to do but which we don't because they would be dumb things to do. And in many (if not most) instances copyright holders insisting that youtube remove videos on the grounds of copyright infringement is a dumb thing to do.
Look, I can understand that the presence of a video on youtube can translate into a potential loss of income for the copyright holder. If instead of going and buying the latest hit single you can watch it for free on youtube then that's potentially lost revenue for the copyright holder. So I can understand why copyright holders might object to people uploading videos containing their songs etc without their permission. But on the other hand think of all the free publicity a youtube video can grant. I (along with most people) had never even heard of the song Forever by Chris Brown (I didn't even know who the artist was) but thanks to this video which has gone viral, an awful lot of people who otherwise wouldn't now do. Thanks to a youtube copyright violation this song has once again become a huge hit (and a financial windfall for the copyright holder). As a result of this "violation" of his (or perhaps more accurately his record company's) copyright, the copyright holder is now a lot wealthier for it since many people have now gone out and bought this song having heard it on a video in violation of copyright. Thousands if not millions of people who would never otherwise have bought the song because they wouldn't otherwise have known it existed have gone out and spent money on it.
Most copyright holders -- and particularly those whose copyright is going to be a source of potential income -- would generally like the added publicity that comes through a copyright violation on youtube. What they don't like is the potential loss of income (eg through lost royalties) that comes with it. In many cases I would suggest that from a commercial point of view it would make sense to allow copyright violations (at least some of them) to take place on account of the free publicity they generate. Ultimately that's something for copyright holders to weigh up in making a commercial decision. They are free to insist on their copyright and ask youtube to remove the offending video (or at least kill the sound to the video if it's a song we're talking about). But whether this is a decision that is in their overall interest is another matter entirely. Sometimes it will be, sometimes it won't be. And in any event I'm not really criticising copyright holders for insisting on their rights in situations like this.
Altogether different, however, are videos in breach of copyright but the presence of which on youtube does not involve any potential loss of income (through royalties or otherwise) for the copyright holder. And the rugby video I posted is exactly that kind of video. Sky Television was not losing any potential revenue from this video being on youtube. The fact that someone posted a video of an isolated incident of public interest compiled from Sky television footage is not going to cause any loss of revenue for Sky Television. People who subscribe to Sky Sports do so in order to watch matches in their entirety and in a timely manner (i.e. usually live). The appearance several months after the event on youtube of a few minutes of Sky's footage of a single and highly unusual incident (which caused a scandal in the rugby world and led to lengthy bans and large fines for those involved) -- we're not even talking match highlights here people -- is not in any way, shape or form damaging to Sky's commercial interests in the copyright of their television footage. So why do they insist on the video's removal? Are they nothing more than mindless automatons who don't actually think about the effects of the presence of a particular video on youtube and the potential effects of its removal but instead just automatically fire off lawyers' letters the moment they spot a copyright infringement? Here's a lesson for you: Copyright infringement is not always a bad thing for the copyright holder. Sometimes it's in your interests to allow it to take place. So for goodness' sake THINK before you act. And here's another lesson for you: Even if a particular copyright infringement doesn't have a positive effect, that doesn't necessarily mean it has a negative effect. It can be entirely neutral (as I think the presence of the rugby video in question was). BUT your insistence on its removal can have a negative effect on your public image.
British Sky Broadcasting, you've just gone down a lot in my estimation. As a result of what you have done here I am a lot less likely now to hand over to you my hard earned money in subscription fees because of your mindless decision to insist on the removal of a video from youtube in a situation which wasn't costing you any potential revenue. While it's undoubtedly your right as copyright holder to insist on this course of action it's equally my right as a consumer to point out what a stupid move it was on your part and in protest to refrain from subscribing to your television channel. In this case it is not so much the law of copyright that is the ass but British Sky Broadcasting Ltd for insisting on the video's removal.
In a sense that's fair eno
ugh. If someone has posted a video containing copyrighted material and done so without the copyright holder's consent then (subject to exceptions in the law about fair dealing / fair use) the copyright holder undoubtedly has the legal right to have it removed. So of course I'm not denying a copyright holder the right to insist that youtube remove videos posted there without the copyright holder's consent. What I am objecting to is the point of the exercise of this (undoubted) legal right. Just because you're free to take a particular course of action doesn't mean you should. There are lots of things we are free to do but which we don't because they would be dumb things to do. And in many (if not most) instances copyright holders insisting that youtube remove videos on the grounds of copyright infringement is a dumb thing to do.Look, I can understand that the presence of a video on youtube can translate into a potential loss of income for the copyright holder. If instead of going and buying the latest hit single you can watch it for free on youtube then that's potentially lost revenue for the copyright holder. So I can understand why copyright holders might object to people uploading videos containing their songs etc without their permission. But on the other hand think of all the free publicity a youtube video can grant. I (along with most people) had never even heard of the song Forever by Chris Brown (I didn't even know who the artist was) but thanks to this video which has gone viral, an awful lot of people who otherwise wouldn't now do. Thanks to a youtube copyright violation this song has once again become a huge hit (and a financial windfall for the copyright holder). As a result of this "violation" of his (or perhaps more accurately his record company's) copyright, the copyright holder is now a lot wealthier for it since many people have now gone out and bought this song having heard it on a video in violation of copyright. Thousands if not millions of people who would never otherwise have bought the song because they wouldn't otherwise have known it existed have gone out and spent money on it.
Most copyright holders -- and particularly those whose copyright is going to be a source of potential income -- would generally like the added publicity that comes through a copyright violation on youtube. What they don't like is the potential loss of income (eg through lost royalties) that comes with it. In many cases I would suggest that from a commercial point of view it would make sense to allow copyright violations (at least some of them) to take place on account of the free publicity they generate. Ultimately that's something for copyright holders to weigh up in making a commercial decision. They are free to insist on their copyright and ask youtube to remove the offending video (or at least kill the sound to the video if it's a song we're talking about). But whether this is a decision that is in their overall interest is another matter entirely. Sometimes it will be, sometimes it won't be. And in any event I'm not really criticising copyright holders for insisting on their rights in situations like this.
Altogether different, however, are videos in breach of copyright but the presence of which on youtube does not involve any potential loss of income (through royalties or otherwise) for the copyright holder. And the rugby video I posted is exactly that kind of video. Sky Television was not losing any potential revenue from this video being on youtube. The fact that someone posted a video of an isolated incident of public interest compiled from Sky television footage is not going to cause any loss of revenue for Sky Television. People who subscribe to Sky Sports do so in order to watch matches in their entirety and in a timely manner (i.e. usually live). The appearance several months after the event on youtube of a few minutes of Sky's footage of a single and highly unusual incident (which caused a scandal in the rugby world and led to lengthy bans and large fines for those involved) -- we're not even talking match highlights here people -- is not in any way, shape or form damaging to Sky's commercial interests in the copyright of their television footage. So why do they insist on the video's removal? Are they nothing more than mindless automatons who don't actually think about the effects of the presence of a particular video on youtube and the potential effects of its removal but instead just automatically fire off lawyers' letters the moment they spot a copyright infringement? Here's a lesson for you: Copyright infringement is not always a bad thing for the copyright holder. Sometimes it's in your interests to allow it to take place. So for goodness' sake THINK before you act. And here's another lesson for you: Even if a particular copyright infringement doesn't have a positive effect, that doesn't necessarily mean it has a negative effect. It can be entirely neutral (as I think the presence of the rugby video in question was). BUT your insistence on its removal can have a negative effect on your public image.
British Sky Broadcasting, you've just gone down a lot in my estimation. As a result of what you have done here I am a lot less likely now to hand over to you my hard earned money in subscription fees because of your mindless decision to insist on the removal of a video from youtube in a situation which wasn't costing you any potential revenue. While it's undoubtedly your right as copyright holder to insist on this course of action it's equally my right as a consumer to point out what a stupid move it was on your part and in protest to refrain from subscribing to your television channel. In this case it is not so much the law of copyright that is the ass but British Sky Broadcasting Ltd for insisting on the video's removal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment