YouTube is a Friend, Not a Foe

YouTube is capping video lengths to reduce copyright infringement, according Ars. The company conducted an analysis of the videos in its system that are over 10 minutes long and found that the majority were full length, copyrighted videos from tv shows and movies. In response YouTube set up a paid Premium Content Program for professional videos.

I can certainly understand why YouTube had to put these measures in place. They don't want to become the next Napster. Yet somehow I think that most of the networks and the marketers are missing the opportunity here to partner with YouTube.

Here you have this vibrant community of amateur content producers who are going to considerable efforts to post their own videos. Plus there many more who are consuming them. And yes, some of this content is produced by big media. My point is that YouTube is candy for the marketers and the TV networks. Everyone here wants to tune into video programming. In a TiVO driven world you couldn't ask for more.

Rather than fighting YouTube, companies should be partnering with them, like MTV did. For example, advertisers could open source their creative into pieces, release them on YouTube and encourage the community to remix them into the next great TV ad. The content producers could release pilots into the community and partner with them to co-create the next show.

Time and again we've seen that when people aggregate into a content community they become accustomed to maintaining their rights there - whether they're right or wrong. Rather than fight the community the content networks and the marketers need to find the magical middle ground of compromise. When will they learn?

Technorati Tags: YouTube

Comments

[Mike]

Expect an exodus of original filmmakers to Google Video.

[Eric Eggertson]

I suspect the networks don't have the licensing rights to allow mash-ups, particularly when an ad includes professional actors, musicians and composers.

Any active encouragement of that sort of thing could open them up to litigation. An actor/composer might even argue the network had an obligation to shut down unauthorized distribution of the commercial/show/whatever once they became aware of it.

(Disclaimer: I've never looked into the U.S. legal situation on this.)

[Drew Olanoff]

Our weekly videocast/podcast the Best Damn Tech Show, Period. runs at 45 minutes and we have been heavily affected by this new change. We are not using copyrighted content, but are being punished in the old "some morons ruined it for everyone" addage. This is bad for us as YourTube was a great tool to get our show to our audience quickly.

[makethelogobigger]

Not trying to be a jerk here, but two things:

First, everyone is basically getting to post their own work, copyrighted, mashed, whatever, on someone else’s dime/bandwidth. In this case, YouTube foots the bill. Did anyone really expect the free ride to last forever?

Secondly, so you post anything you want for free and maybe make money off it, but bypass paying YouTube? No way they’re going to miss out on their cut – that’s what’s at play here.

They are only using the threat of a potential suit as a way to make the transition to a pay model.

Nobody’s sued them yet that we know of, right? If it were really about legal issues, then with all the copyrighted content on there now, there surely would’ve been a lawsuit filed at this point.

(And even Google will go to a pay format if they sense there’s money to be made.)