| | |
Google fails to sign industry User Generated Content guidelines
Please support our Pay-Per-Click Advertising advertiser: Get a Free Web Marketing Analysis!
Many of the world's leading Internet and media companies, including CBS Corp., Dailymotion, Fox Entertainment Group, Microsoft Corp., MySpace, NBC Universal, Veoh Networks Inc., Viacom Inc. and The Walt Disney Company, have pledged their support to a set of collaborative principles that are designed to foster the growth and development of user-generated content online while at the same time protecting the intellectual property of content owners. The eagle-eyed amongst you may have noticed that Google, owners of the biggest video-sharing site on the planet, YouTube, is strangely absent. Well, perhaps not so strangely given that both Google and YouTube are currently facing a $1 billion copyright infringement suit filed by Viacom Inc which has signed the User Generated Content principles (UGC) agreement.
In what many people are seeing as an attempt to bring DRM into the online video-sharing space, the UGC principles set out a comprehensive set of guidelines to assist publishers and content creators alike to produce more content through legitimate channels. The principles call for a broad range of constructive and cooperative efforts by copyright owners and UGC services, including:
Despite our request for a comment, Google remained silent on the matter. Although some media sector analysts seem to believe that if the UGC principles become an accepted standard Google will have no choice but to join at some point, if you removed all the potential copyright infringing material from YouTube the service would suffer in terms of user popularity. Indeed, Google has just this week revealed details of a new technology which it says allows content owners to automate copyright identification on YouTube, but rather tellingly it does not enable the automatic uploading blocking of such copyrighted content.
Of course, there is another argument to all this which isn't getting much air time at present: is the quality of the copyrighted content being uploaded to such sites actually of a level that is worth protecting?
In what many people are seeing as an attempt to bring DRM into the online video-sharing space, the UGC principles set out a comprehensive set of guidelines to assist publishers and content creators alike to produce more content through legitimate channels. The principles call for a broad range of constructive and cooperative efforts by copyright owners and UGC services, including:
- Implementation of state of the art filtering technology with the goal to eliminate infringing content on UGC services, including blocking infringing uploads before they are made available to the public.
- Upgrading technology when commercially reasonable.
- Cooperating to ensure that the technology is implemented in a manner that effectively balances legitimate interests, including fair use.
- Cooperation in developing procedures for promptly addressing claims that content was blocked in error.
- Regularly using the technology to remove infringing content that was uploaded before the technology could block it.
- Identification and removal of links to sites that are clearly dedicated to, and predominantly used for, the dissemination of infringing content.
- Promotion of content-rich, infringement-free services by continuing to cooperatively test new technologies and by collaboratively updating these principles as appropriate to keep current with evolving developments.
Despite our request for a comment, Google remained silent on the matter. Although some media sector analysts seem to believe that if the UGC principles become an accepted standard Google will have no choice but to join at some point, if you removed all the potential copyright infringing material from YouTube the service would suffer in terms of user popularity. Indeed, Google has just this week revealed details of a new technology which it says allows content owners to automate copyright identification on YouTube, but rather tellingly it does not enable the automatic uploading blocking of such copyrighted content.
Of course, there is another argument to all this which isn't getting much air time at present: is the quality of the copyrighted content being uploaded to such sites actually of a level that is worth protecting?
0
•
•
•
•
There is no reason why google should be made to sign something put into place by these other companies many of which are either compeditors or in the case of microsoft, self appointed rivals. I'm wondering if Google/Youtube was even offered a chance to get in on this agreement.
0
•
•
•
•
That is the thing about many standards or standard practices. They are only developed to benefit certain people or organisations and and increasing becoming less independed and autonomous.
0
•
•
•
•
Google, at least right now, is making money hand-over-fist. Given that, and assuming they don't think they have any reason to believe they won't continue to dramatically increase their profits over the reasonably foreseeable future, why would they sign on to such a limiting set of guidelines?
If it were me, and thankfully it's not, I'd toss Viacom their little billion and tell them and the rest to shut up and stuff it, and I'd just keep rolling. Of course, that probably doesn't make good business sense, but if I'm raking in several billion bucks every year, I'm not gonna have the discipline to care a whole lot about business sense (stockholders might not agree though, LOL).
Microsoft, in particular, seems to always me about "standards" if it keeps others from beating them (or benefits them directly), but when they have a lead, it's always about their "right to innovate". I don't blame them though. Like everyone else, they are looking out for #1...as Google probably feels it is doing by avoiding this mishmash
If it were me, and thankfully it's not, I'd toss Viacom their little billion and tell them and the rest to shut up and stuff it, and I'd just keep rolling. Of course, that probably doesn't make good business sense, but if I'm raking in several billion bucks every year, I'm not gonna have the discipline to care a whole lot about business sense (stockholders might not agree though, LOL).
Microsoft, in particular, seems to always me about "standards" if it keeps others from beating them (or benefits them directly), but when they have a lead, it's always about their "right to innovate". I don't blame them though. Like everyone else, they are looking out for #1...as Google probably feels it is doing by avoiding this mishmash
Similar Threads
- Do You Trust and Use User Generated Content For Your Marketing Plan? (Promotion and Marketing Plans)
- Google Webmaster Guidelines: Do as I say and not as I do? (Search Engine Optimization)
- What is acceptable reuse of user-generated content? (Geeks' Lounge)
- Cloudosys - User-generated content management system (Show Off your Projects)
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Tag cloud for copyright, google, news, video, youtube
advertising age amd android apple avatar bing blogging bluegene botnet broadband browser business cellphone china chips cloudcomputing copyright crime data database development dos downloads economy email energy enterprise facebook firefox games gaming gmail google government hacker hacking hardware ibm ibm.news intelibm internet iphone ipod itunes law legal linux mac malware marketing medicine memory microsoft mobile mozilla music news openoffice opensource os pc piracy politics porn privacy ps3 recession redhat report research russia search security sex socialnetworking software spam statistics sun supercomputer supercomputing survey technology trends trojan twitter ubuntu uk video virus vista web windows windows7 working x86 xbox yahoo youtube




