Media giants hope to leapfrog YouTube
A couple days ago, executives from two of America's biggest media conglomerates announced the creation a new online video service that they hope can overtake Google's YouTube as an Internet destination - which they view as a threat to the business model they wish to preserve (where content and distribution rights are tightly controlled by a corporate elite).
The enthusiastic presidents of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Peter Chernin) and General Electric's NBC Universal (Jeff Zucker) couldn't stop boasting about their yet to be named offering, which Chernin said would be "one of the most exciting alliances in the history of the Internet" while Zucker claimed it would be "the largest ad platform on Earth."
A few observers have predictably described this unproven service as a likely "potent alternative" to Google's YouTube. In an article published yesterday, Brian Morrissey offers a better analysis and good quotes from skeptics:
They are of course promising the service will have some kind of digital restrictions management (DRM), which is important to them and fellow control freaks at the helm of the other massive media empires. Here's a question, though: since the service reportedly will allow users to upload their own videos, will individuals who choose to submit their own works be offered protection?
That is, will the service's terms of service allow users to upload videos without surrendering away their intellectual property rights?
Will users receive any revenue from the advertising that will probably run in front of or besides their contributions on this service? Or do these industry bigwigs just expect to reap the benefits of free video donated from a community of users with no strings attached?
The industry obviously makes a big deal about copyright but doesn't seem to care about trampling on the rights of consumers or independent content creators:
Zucker and Chernin's new service is supposedly open for "business with anyone" but other conglomerates aren't even on board yet. Viacom, already tangled in legal battles as noted above, expressed interest in the new service but has already inked a deal with Joost, a forthcoming peer to peer on demand video service which is currently in beta. (Joost was founded last year by the creators of Skype and is expected to go public this summer).
CBS, meanwhile, has said it will enter into partnerships on an "open, nonexclusive basis" while the Walt Disney Company doesn't "seem to be too eager to work through any entity that could dilute their brand", according to a report in BusinessWeek which cited knowledgeable industry observers.
This service just isn't going to be a "game changer". Streaming video and web advertising aren't new. Neither are streamed television shows - ABC, for instance, offers a number of its most popular shows on its website with minimal advertising. YouTube can adapt - it isn't going to go away.
If anything, it will only become more popular.
The enthusiastic presidents of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Peter Chernin) and General Electric's NBC Universal (Jeff Zucker) couldn't stop boasting about their yet to be named offering, which Chernin said would be "one of the most exciting alliances in the history of the Internet" while Zucker claimed it would be "the largest ad platform on Earth."
A few observers have predictably described this unproven service as a likely "potent alternative" to Google's YouTube. In an article published yesterday, Brian Morrissey offers a better analysis and good quotes from skeptics:
"They're missing the point there. YouTube is not about their content," said Fernanda Romano, ecd at Interpublic Group's Lowe in New York. "The cool thing about YouTube is it's all about participation. It's about the human being, and that's what they're forgetting."The Internet is indeed a truly democratized, powerful medium. The beauty of it is that it can't be controlled by a handful of executives. YouTube has flourished because it doesn't have autocratic management, as analyst Jonathan Arber of Ovum concluded in his take on the announcement:
This service will not be a YouTube killer, or even much of a competitor. YouTube is popular because it combines equal parts user-generated video content and social networking, as well as mainstream TV episodes and movies from all over the world – it is about users worldwide controlling what they watch and when they watch it.Zucker and Chernin insist their new service is about "professional" (versus "amateur") content, and have tried to downplay any challenge to YouTube following their initial announcement.
This new offering from NBC/News Corp seems to be focused chiefly on the delivery of mainstream content, and the control will be strictly in the hands of the content owners.
They are of course promising the service will have some kind of digital restrictions management (DRM), which is important to them and fellow control freaks at the helm of the other massive media empires. Here's a question, though: since the service reportedly will allow users to upload their own videos, will individuals who choose to submit their own works be offered protection?
That is, will the service's terms of service allow users to upload videos without surrendering away their intellectual property rights?
Will users receive any revenue from the advertising that will probably run in front of or besides their contributions on this service? Or do these industry bigwigs just expect to reap the benefits of free video donated from a community of users with no strings attached?
The industry obviously makes a big deal about copyright but doesn't seem to care about trampling on the rights of consumers or independent content creators:
Activist groups sued Viacom Inc. on Thursday, claiming the parent of Comedy Central improperly asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove a parody of the cable network's "The Colbert Report."Viacom, which had earlier sued Google for copyright infringement, now ironically is defending itself in a lawsuit alleging abuse of the industry supported Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and censorship of legitimate free speech.
Viacom responded by saying it had no records of ever making such a request.
Although the video in question contained clips taken from the television show, MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC argued that their use was protected under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
With Viacom identified by YouTube as the source of the removal request, they said Viacom should have known the use was legal and thus its complaint to YouTube to have the video blocked amounted to a "misrepresentation" that is subject to damages under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Zucker and Chernin's new service is supposedly open for "business with anyone" but other conglomerates aren't even on board yet. Viacom, already tangled in legal battles as noted above, expressed interest in the new service but has already inked a deal with Joost, a forthcoming peer to peer on demand video service which is currently in beta. (Joost was founded last year by the creators of Skype and is expected to go public this summer).
CBS, meanwhile, has said it will enter into partnerships on an "open, nonexclusive basis" while the Walt Disney Company doesn't "seem to be too eager to work through any entity that could dilute their brand", according to a report in BusinessWeek which cited knowledgeable industry observers.
This service just isn't going to be a "game changer". Streaming video and web advertising aren't new. Neither are streamed television shows - ABC, for instance, offers a number of its most popular shows on its website with minimal advertising. YouTube can adapt - it isn't going to go away.
If anything, it will only become more popular.
