As if seven plaintiffs weren’t enough, another lawsuit-happy group is suing YouTube for copyright infringement. But YouTube owner Google claims it’s not doing anything wrong, and will introduce fingerprinting technology in the fall.
Digital Journal — It’s eye candy to some, but a pain in the assets to others. YouTube is under fire once again this week, as a trade group representing music publishers joined a growing list of plaintiffs suing the video-sharing site for violating copyright laws.
Members of the National Music Publishers Association own copyrights to melodies and song lyrics, reported the Wall Street Journal. Media companies often get licenses from both the music label and the NMPA to use any sort of music. Supposedly, YouTube has not obtained those licenses when the company signed deals with four major music labels.
Google, YouTube’s owner, replied in a statement that NMPA’s role in a lawsuit will only hurt its artists:
Many song writers and music publishers view YouTube as a promising promotional platform for connecting with their fans. We are surprised and disappointed that the NMPA has elected to take this route.
The NMPA is joining a lawsuit led by England’s Premier League, a soccer association accusing YouTube of “knowingly misappropriating” its videos. Also part of the massive lawsuit is the Rugby Football League, the Finnish Football League Association, the French Ligue de Football Professionnel, the Federation Francaise de Tennis, Cherry Lane Music Publishing and author Daniel Quinn.
Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson told the Scotsman:
We are pleased to see so many other copyright holders joining us in what we are trying to achieve. The clear and growing message to YouTube and Google is simple: their callous and opportunistic business model is contrary to right, contrary to law, and must and will be stopped.
Google has replied to these plaintiffs by pointing out YouTube’s commitment to develop video-identifying technology to spot copyright-violating clips on the site. Available in the fall, this “fingerprinting” application should appease media companies paranoid about its content being lifted by YouTube users.
But some critics scoff at the idea of this technology, claiming YouTube is just using it as a stalling tactic. Louis Solomon, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose LLP acting as class counsel, told the Wall Street Journal:
Their statement has no credibility, because I don’t think it’s their business model.
What these lawsuit-happy companies forget is the protection YouTube receives under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998. The Act allows companies like YouTube to avoid any financial penalties if they immediately remove copyrighted content posted by its users.
As Chicago-based Medill Reports said:
So long as YouTube provides a channel for filing such complaints and subsequently removes the content, they are off the hook.
And Google believes the onus is on the copyright holder. It said in the same statement:
[U.S. copyright law] places the responsibility for identifying alleged infringements with those who can actually identify it, the owners.
YouTube now serves up 2.5 billion videos a month, accounting for 60 per cent of all videos viewed online. Its burgeoning popularity isn’t slowing anytime soon, and music publishers and soccer leagues are oblivious to the fact of how YouTube can help their growth. Because YouTube is protected under digital media laws, the company isn’t losing sleep over the upcoming litigation. In fact, this lawsuit is just a fly buzzing in Google’s face.
The good that will come out of the litigation is the fingerprinting technology YouTube will likely unveil in several months. The site will want to beef up its security by developing sort of software that finds copyrighted material, especially in light of the $1 billion Viacom suit against YouTube. For example, last year video-sharing site Guba introduced proprietary technology codenamed “Johnny” to analyze video and generate a unique fingerprint for each clip.
The YouTube lawsuits will be an ongoing headache for Google but how will they affect viewers? It’s unclear if this litigation will spur other media companies to jump onboard, thus reducing the amount of content offered to the public. One thing is certain: YouTube as we know it will morph into a different beast in the coming years. It can’t wallow in courtrooms while media giants deliver body blows to its mission statement. Will we still enjoy free videos on YouTube in the future? Maybe so, but not like we do now.
