Does Even Alberto Gonzales Hate Todd Goliath?
I know, I know, it sounds crazy, and I bet you're thinking Alberto Gonzales probably doesn't even know who Todd Goliath is, much less hate him! But tell me, what other explanation can there be for the Attorney General, along with the rest of our fine Justice Department, suddenly up and vowing to crack down harder than ever on nefarious intellectual property bandits?
The Justice Department is pledging to get even tougher on copyright violators and other intellectual property thieves, saying it has already boosted convictions and lengthened prison sentences.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday he was sending a bill to Congress--the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007--that would toughen penalties for repeat offenders. He also said he would "hit criminals in their wallets" by boosting restitution and ensuring all ill-gotten gains are forfeited, as well as any property used to commit the crimes.
Wow, that's harsh! Even so, I can't think of anyone whose wallet I'd rather hit right now (and by wallet, I mean groin) than Goliath. Dude needs to be smacked upside the head with that Intellectual Property Protection Act but good. I'm not so sure about a prison sentence, though. The proliferation of his "art" is annoying on a Thomas Kincade level, and his level of success is insulting to real struggling talent, but I'm not sure it's really enough to be punishable by a prison stay.
Come to think of it, I'm really actually kind of surprised that, given our current administration's penchant for laissez-faire economics, the attorney general would be so bloodthirsty for Goliath, who basically said, "Screw everyone else, whatever it takes to make me a millionaire." One would think they would, if anything, hold him up as a shining beacon of intrepid entrepreneurship.
But, wait a second. This is about that kind of intellectual property theft, isn't it? This isn't just another way to chip away at the same tired old Viacom hates YouTube problem again, is it? Because if all "tougher on intellectual property thieves" means is "suing people who upload clips of Kids in the Hall and making it so that I can't post the 'Girl Drink Drunk' sketch on an internet message board because it won't be making certain people more money that way," I am going to be very angry indeed.
TV and film piracy has been a big issue in the conversion to digital, with Justice pledging to boost the number of attorneys trained to prosecute intellectual property (IP) crimes and to encourage more international cooperation in investigations.
Universal Chairman Bob Wright has argued that getting a handle on that piracy is not only critical to the digital TV conversion, but the whole U.S. and even global economy.
"These crimes, as we all know, also have a direct impact on our economy, costing victims millions of dollars and, if left unchecked, diminishing entrepreneurship," Gonzales said in announcing the bill.
Oh, god damn it!
Viacom v. YouTube, aka The Reason You Cant Find Colbert Clips Anymore
On March 13th, the copyright legal showdown we all saw coming officially began. Media behemoth Viacom, owners of Paramount Pictures, Noggin, Comedy Central, TVLand, BET and some channel Ive never heard of called Neopets, decided to get all up in YouTubes grill
legally speaking that is. The text of the briskly-worded 27-page federal complaint makes the following major allegations:
YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale, depriving writers, composers and performers of the rewards they are owed for effort and innovation, reducing the incentives of Americas creative industries, and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well. Using the leverage of the Internet, YouTube appropriates the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTubes benefit without payment or license.
YouTubes website purports to be a forum for users to share their own original user generated video content. In reality, however, a vast amount of that content consists of infringing copies of Plaintiffs copyrighted works, including such popular (and obviously copyrighted) television programming and motion pictures as SpongeBob SquarePants, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, South Park, Ren & Stimpy, MTV Unplugged, An Inconvenient Truth, Mean Girls, and many others.
Yeah, thats right. YouTube is using the leverage of the internet (whatever that means) to steal the intellectual property inherent in Lindsay Lohans greatest work. How could we ever forgive them?
Seriously, though, the case is pretty fascinating to think about in terms of how copyright has been defined for the last 200 years and how that definition will evolve in the age of the Intertubes. The complaint contains five alleged causes of actions, but its Count IV's Inducement of Copyright Infringement that has the legal world all a-twitter. Stanford Law Professor, founder for the Center for Internet and Society and all-around copyright law badass Lawrence Lessig recently broke it down for the Grey Ladys Op-Ed page:
For most of the history of copyright law, it was Congress that was at the center of copyright policy making. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision, the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly, or copyright. It has thus been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary. The court explained that sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. In the view of the court in Sony, if you dont like how new technologies affect copyright, take your problem to Congress.
But 20 months ago, the Supreme Court reversed this wise policy of deference. Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Grokster case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright the wrong of providing technology that induces copyright infringement. It announced this new form of liability even though at precisely the same time Congress was holding hearings about whether to amend the Copyright Act to create the same liability.
The Grokster case thus sent a clear message to lawyers everywhere: You get two bites at the copyright policy-making apple, one in Congress and one in the courts. But in Congress, you need hundreds of votes. In the courts, you need just five.
Snarks at activist-judging aside, Viacom is basically seeking to overturn or severely limit the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which allowed for companies like YouTube to avoid liability for violations of copyright by its users so long as they were unaware of those violations and took steps to remove the offending materials once they were alerted to them. Viacom now seeks to use the Grokster decision as an end-run around the DMCAs safety net.
So what does this mean? Is YouTube pretty much fucked then? Its too early to tell, but now that theyre backed by Googles cash and legal team, were basically in for the fight of the century. As for what this means for you and I, its pretty easy to see who we should be rooting for. An extension of liability to YouTube in this case could open the door to dozens more suits like this that could stifle creativity and cripple large sectors of internet industry, possibly even exposing sites like our beloved SuicideGirls to potential civil liability.
If breathing life into such mind-obliterating trash as I Love New York or My Super Sweet 16 wasnt bad enough, Viacom has decided to up the Evil Quotient that much more. And we could all be the ones paying for it in the end.
YouTube: Now with .01 Percent Less Entertainment!
Remember when Google bought YouTube, media analysts called the move risky because of YouTubes shaky relationship with copyright laws? Everybody was worried for, like, a minute and then watched a bunch of Wonder Showzen clips on YouTube and forgot the whole thing ever happened.
Well, while we were laughing, apparently a lot of shit went down behind the scenes.
On Friday, massive media conglomerate Viacom demanded that YouTube remove all Viacom-related content from the site. Its more or less the endgame in a protracted legal battle between Viacom and YouTubes parent company, Google.
Since Viacom owns MTV, MTV2 and Comedy Central, that means a lot of extremely YouTube-friendly content The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Wonder Showzen, Jackass, South Park and more needs to be off the site. Of course, because YouTubes content is user-driven, the clips can be reposted. The chaotic nature of user-submitted content seems to ensure somethings going to slip by.
As a result, YouTubes lawyers have evidently declared a gangland war against purported Viacom theft. Theres already been random shrapnel in this intellectual property drive-by; a Massachusetts man was threatened with legal action for posting a video on YouTube called Sunday nite dinner at Redbones in Somerville, Mass. According to the letter he received, the video, concerning a group of friends having dinner, infringed on Viacom international.
Viacom isnt the first group to reclaim their intellectual property from YouTube Time Warner, Universal Music and others have threatened to sue YouTube, and News Corp recently subpoenaed YouTube for names of people who uploaded Simpsons and 24 clips Viacom has been the most consistent pain in YouTubes ass.
Last November, under orders from Viacom, YouTube pulled its Comedy Central clips. A week later, with little explanation, the clips returned. That same month, the CBS network announced that YouTube clips of David Letterman had drawn more viewers to the show.
Its weird that an institution as unhip as the Tiffany network, the home of Walker, Texas Ranger, would be as cool about YouTube and Viacom, which owns youth-tastic entertainment outlets Comedy Central and MTV (Incidentally, Viacom and CBS used to be the same company until splitting in 2005). Weirder still is how Viacom shows, notably The Colbert Report, embraces web-driven audience interactivity. Also weird is how Viacom owns iFilm.com, which was the biggest viral video game in town until YouTube.
Viacom must have some larger strategy at work. Theyre at risk of alienating their core audiences of twitchy internet nerds. Also, they must realize how statistically insignificant their YouTube contributions are. News reports say YouTube needs to take down 100,000 clips because of Viacoms orders. YouTube has over 70 million videos. Colberts cool and all, but theres a lot of other shit out there.