Viacom v. YouTube

A win for YouTube changes the political climate in Google's favor, meaning new legislation would probably follow public favor, which the lawsuit would promote for the sharing of public domain content.

Furthermore, in simple terms, once aired, content is (or damn well ought to be) public domain. So it follows that YouTube's sharing model falls under fair use of such content.

The Radio Commission (today's FCC) established two things that matter here. First, that the public owns the airwaves; and 2, that the phone company couldn't possibly be able to monitor (and be accountable for) the content that flowed through its privately owned copper (although it uses public rights of way). This is what I believe is the underpinning of Safe Harbor; that you can't hold a media company accountable for everything its pass through its network. Safe Harbor may only be possible because it permits copyright owners to object to content if it owns it, and subsequently get it removed by the site owner. Lawmakers may have felt this would be a rarity, but it turned out to be the norm.

Ultimately, I think this will change the face of copyright law. Or at least we can hope so. Media companies have some catching up to do. Technology is allowing great advances in society and is hampered by current copyright law. Embrace technology. It's a good thing. Figure out, as Google has, to make money by working with the onward flow of technology. Greed and inflexibility are the only things stopping us.

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

So I'm a suit, I guess, and I write form letters. That's what people expect when they write to me and complain that we're doing something different. They might try to find a friendly ear (like one of our radio personalities) to touch first, but plenty of the nasty-grams make it past my desk, so I have to either ignore them or try to compose coherent answers. This one deals with the username/password issue lots of sites are requiring.

Is everybody as jaded as this?

[Dear Radio Personality],
I didn't want to receive a form letter from some [company] suit concerning the registration process required to listen to the online broadcast on [radio station], so I chose you to receive this message. Lucky you! I don't have to register to listen to [station] on my radio in my car or my home, so why do I have to do so [to] listen to it online? The service may still be financially free but it is no longer nuisance free. Don't we have enough nuisances in our daily lives already?

So I write:

Thanks for writing to tell us how you feel. I promise that I'm not wearing a suit and this isn't a form letter, so I hope it's OK that I reply to your note.

As a fellow listener, I understand your perspective about nuisances. Interesting how perspectives change on the other side of the glass.

While you say streaming online is free, somebody's paying for the hardware & software, staffing, creative licensing and bandwidth we all use when we listen online -- which is quite different than on-air listening; the more who listen, the higher the cost. To earn its keep, our streaming operations have to demonstrate to advertisers how many people listen and from where. So the sign-in process essentially helps us pay the costs. The alternative is doing what many other broadcasters are doing, which is charging listeners a subscription fee.

We're fortunate because the vast majority of our loyal listeners are pleased to spend the four extra seconds it takes to sign in and be counted because they like our programming and they value this new
convenience. I hope to count you as one of those listeners!

Thanks again for writing to us.

Now, perhaps something like the following story can help all of us!

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

Lost

Hello again!

I'd fallen off the face of the blog-o-sphere (do they still call it that?) until now this moment. Seems like, after the initial blogging blitz, things died off. Now, even your brother-in-law is blogging (and could barely use his laptop at Christmas).

I've been ambiguously refering to myself as the web guy for over a decade now, since the little stint at the copier place (which amounts to driving around town, flirting with the girls at offices). And now, for the second time, I'm leading the web initiative at a Clear Channel Radio plant in the midwest. Fun toys!

Web 2007: Who knew they'd start sticking pictures with voices?

I guess what comes around... I'd like to talk more about video on the web. Just a few years ago, I felt so strongly against plugging up the tubes with broadband content, especially video. But the quality of compressed media -- and the bandwidth that carries it -- is now only limited by where in the $50 to $100 range you want your connection to be.

Next time, let's chat about making you famous!

Regards,

Danny