Leaking a bit of my future plans on Beet.TV

I was interviewed by Andy Plesser at last week’s AlwaysOn conference where I talked a bit about what I’m seeing in the video blogging industry and where I hope to fit in.

One other thing I learned at BlogHer is that YouTube is gonna face a HUGE backlash over its licensing. EVERY video session I was in had discussions about YouTube and how people were pulling their content down. Is YouTube listening? Not yet.

Oh, Yvonne Divita, thank you so much for your overly-generous compliment. I’m ordering your book, Dick*Less Marketing. The companies I’ve mentioned should read it.

Comments

  1. HUGE backlash over its licensing? They won’t care, everyone else will just violate copyrights, uploading your stuff anyways, it being up to you to eternally opt out. Eventually, people will cave, or they will make deals, like NBC — which is why YouTube will hang on when the Napsters didn’t. Fighting and suing them Metallica-style is not a long-term winning move.

    Google Print gets away with it, and so will YouTube, as copyright is meaningless in the new Web 2.0 doncha know? Info wants to be free and all rights want to be accorded…brave new world.

  2. HUGE backlash over its licensing? They won’t care, everyone else will just violate copyrights, uploading your stuff anyways, it being up to you to eternally opt out. Eventually, people will cave, or they will make deals, like NBC — which is why YouTube will hang on when the Napsters didn’t. Fighting and suing them Metallica-style is not a long-term winning move.

    Google Print gets away with it, and so will YouTube, as copyright is meaningless in the new Web 2.0 doncha know? Info wants to be free and all rights want to be accorded…brave new world.

  3. What is this idea that the internet should be free. Now its ‘the new Web 2.0′ is all about free. In the 90′s it was also all should be free. Saw lots of bad free businessmodels ;p

    Why not respecting copyrights in a healthy way? Rather discuss healty ways than just go for the ‘web is free’ discussions.

    I dont want to use this nice post from Scoble to start a heating discussion, but ideas are welcome as i dont have the answer myself, yet :).

    cheers,

  4. What is this idea that the internet should be free. Now its ‘the new Web 2.0′ is all about free. In the 90′s it was also all should be free. Saw lots of bad free businessmodels ;p

    Why not respecting copyrights in a healthy way? Rather discuss healty ways than just go for the ‘web is free’ discussions.

    I dont want to use this nice post from Scoble to start a heating discussion, but ideas are welcome as i dont have the answer myself, yet :).

    cheers,

  5. So, stage 1 of future plans:

    As VP of a online content company, start negative stories about other online content companies?

  6. So, stage 1 of future plans:

    As VP of a online content company, start negative stories about other online content companies?

  7. Loved the interview.

    Although tech content is what’s hot now, it’s because the tech crowd are early adopters of everything, including downloadable content.

    Although tech vidcasts will stay strong, the larger opportunity is in developing shows of interest to the much larger long-tail of other niches. And niche audiences doesnt equal small audiences.

    What is the best-selling book in the world (literally) for the last 3 years?
    Answer: Purpose Driven Life, a religious book. I know it seem’s so “un-valley-like” to even think developing content in that direction, but it’s a reality.

    The much larger late-adopter tech-challenged “masses” crave content about a wide variety of topics from religion to cooking to sports. It’s when these masses catch on to downloadable content the game will really be on.

  8. Loved the interview.

    Although tech content is what’s hot now, it’s because the tech crowd are early adopters of everything, including downloadable content.

    Although tech vidcasts will stay strong, the larger opportunity is in developing shows of interest to the much larger long-tail of other niches. And niche audiences doesnt equal small audiences.

    What is the best-selling book in the world (literally) for the last 3 years?
    Answer: Purpose Driven Life, a religious book. I know it seem’s so “un-valley-like” to even think developing content in that direction, but it’s a reality.

    The much larger late-adopter tech-challenged “masses” crave content about a wide variety of topics from religion to cooking to sports. It’s when these masses catch on to downloadable content the game will really be on.

  9. Hmm, I’m not so sure that youTube are entirely ignorant to the backlash. I sent them a mail, when I pulled video podcast down, and I at least got a reply saying (paraphrased) “Yeah, you’re not the first to say it, thanks for contacting us, sorry we’ll be losing you”

  10. Hmm, I’m not so sure that youTube are entirely ignorant to the backlash. I sent them a mail, when I pulled video podcast down, and I at least got a reply saying (paraphrased) “Yeah, you’re not the first to say it, thanks for contacting us, sorry we’ll be losing you”

  11. Robert,

    Huge backlash against YouTube? I will beleive it when I see it. I don’t, generally, subscibe to the echo chamber mattering too much once products are established. I would point to the Kryptonite lock thing where the blogosphere went nuts, but they didn’t lose money (see the financials as they are a public company (subsidiary)). Once things are in “the bigger arena”, I think the tech role in it is vastly if not entirely gone.

    YouTube is popular becuase it has jumped out of the tech circles. The people posting there are, for the most part, not the tech people. They are teens, college students, people ripping off network TV etc… Maybe (likely?) it started with the tech folks, but it isn’t them now.

    Further, I would read the whole license and see what it says. Boing Boing has a nice response frome them and put up the whole paragraph (where when you take your content down they lose their rights), which I think makes it a bit more legally palatable.

    I will be interested to see what other sites with, and I know you hate this term, “user generated content” do. How do they have the rights to redistribute, which is what they are doing after all? How do they have the rights to make money off of it (which is what the ad’s on the side are for). They have to, I think, get some license. Will be interested to see what happens.

    For sites where people are paid or under contract to produce content, that is a different beast. For redistribution, I don’t see how the company does it with out permission.

    Gavin

  12. Robert,

    Huge backlash against YouTube? I will beleive it when I see it. I don’t, generally, subscibe to the echo chamber mattering too much once products are established. I would point to the Kryptonite lock thing where the blogosphere went nuts, but they didn’t lose money (see the financials as they are a public company (subsidiary)). Once things are in “the bigger arena”, I think the tech role in it is vastly if not entirely gone.

    YouTube is popular becuase it has jumped out of the tech circles. The people posting there are, for the most part, not the tech people. They are teens, college students, people ripping off network TV etc… Maybe (likely?) it started with the tech folks, but it isn’t them now.

    Further, I would read the whole license and see what it says. Boing Boing has a nice response frome them and put up the whole paragraph (where when you take your content down they lose their rights), which I think makes it a bit more legally palatable.

    I will be interested to see what other sites with, and I know you hate this term, “user generated content” do. How do they have the rights to redistribute, which is what they are doing after all? How do they have the rights to make money off of it (which is what the ad’s on the side are for). They have to, I think, get some license. Will be interested to see what happens.

    For sites where people are paid or under contract to produce content, that is a different beast. For redistribution, I don’t see how the company does it with out permission.

    Gavin

  13. I dont understand…..i still havent figured out why you say people are pulling content down off YouTube, i see the opposite. Maybe the tech guys are, but as Gavin Fischer said, its mostly teens, college highschool students using YouTube.

    Allah Knows Best!

  14. I dont understand…..i still havent figured out why you say people are pulling content down off YouTube, i see the opposite. Maybe the tech guys are, but as Gavin Fischer said, its mostly teens, college highschool students using YouTube.

    Allah Knows Best!

  15. Im not surprised. Even if the controversy has died down a bit, the fact that they changed the TOS in such a blatant form, makes it questionable if vlogs should be uploaded there if the vloggers want to market them.

  16. Im not surprised. Even if the controversy has died down a bit, the fact that they changed the TOS in such a blatant form, makes it questionable if vlogs should be uploaded there if the vloggers want to market them.

  17. Hey Robert,

    Great interview. Great to hear you are looking at what’s going on outside the valley. I’m working on a start up out of Miami, and there is a ton of entrepreneurial spirit in this city. Wish you luck on this new vlog venture!

  18. Hey Robert,

    Great interview. Great to hear you are looking at what’s going on outside the valley. I’m working on a start up out of Miami, and there is a ton of entrepreneurial spirit in this city. Wish you luck on this new vlog venture!

  19. This will take a while to sort itself out. I don’t know if I would give up the rights to my video just to post in on YouTube, but then I’m not the average bear. I’m going to see what happens. It’s nice that it occasions such comment, though.

  20. This will take a while to sort itself out. I don’t know if I would give up the rights to my video just to post in on YouTube, but then I’m not the average bear. I’m going to see what happens. It’s nice that it occasions such comment, though.

  21. Laura: agreed, but soon it won’t be the place to find the best video if content producers put their videos someplace else.

    And, yes, this was a major topic of conversation at several panels and in the hallways. Remember the licensing JUST changed at YouTube, so it’ll take some months to see an effect.

    But people are really pissed and are talking up other services that let them keep control of their content.

  22. Laura: agreed, but soon it won’t be the place to find the best video if content producers put their videos someplace else.

    And, yes, this was a major topic of conversation at several panels and in the hallways. Remember the licensing JUST changed at YouTube, so it’ll take some months to see an effect.

    But people are really pissed and are talking up other services that let them keep control of their content.

  23. Cider: PodTech doesn’t have a content distribution network like YouTube. Translation: we’re not a competitor. We MAKE content, though, and we’ll never put our content on YouTube. Blip.TV or Revver are the two that were suggested the most.

  24. Cider: PodTech doesn’t have a content distribution network like YouTube. Translation: we’re not a competitor. We MAKE content, though, and we’ll never put our content on YouTube. Blip.TV or Revver are the two that were suggested the most.

  25. Youtube is an internet service provider. As such, they are not responsible for the content that users post to each other.

    They can get into trouble if, say for instance a party asks them to, oh, say, take down copyrighted material, and then they intentionally do not make an effort to do so. Or do not do so in a reasonable time frame.

    When a copyright holder requests that copyrighted content be taken down, the internet service provider, must either show proof of sole copyright, or sublicensed copyright, or must make a reasonable effort to take the content down.

    That or they will have to pay a settlement for the cost of reproducing the unlicensed content.

    Otherwise the phone company would have to have you prerecord a telephone call and first screen it before transmission. Again, if you have been sent letters to remove copyrighted material and your company ignores them willfully, watch out, because no matter the defense, you are going to have a very bad day in court.

  26. Youtube is an internet service provider. As such, they are not responsible for the content that users post to each other.

    They can get into trouble if, say for instance a party asks them to, oh, say, take down copyrighted material, and then they intentionally do not make an effort to do so. Or do not do so in a reasonable time frame.

    When a copyright holder requests that copyrighted content be taken down, the internet service provider, must either show proof of sole copyright, or sublicensed copyright, or must make a reasonable effort to take the content down.

    That or they will have to pay a settlement for the cost of reproducing the unlicensed content.

    Otherwise the phone company would have to have you prerecord a telephone call and first screen it before transmission. Again, if you have been sent letters to remove copyrighted material and your company ignores them willfully, watch out, because no matter the defense, you are going to have a very bad day in court.

  27. Additionally, implied contracts only apply when monetary value is exchanged. Such as you are using the electricity in a house when you move in and that is an implied contract with the electric company. If the item has no monetary value, such as a home video you upload, or texts you write, it can not be an implied contract.

    So unlike the MP3.com shutdown, where music could have a directly price value attached, video is quite different. You can’t say this video sells at target for $9.99 in a plastic case. You can’t even do that with TV show.

    So the user has to sign an explicit contract saying that they own the copyright and that they are transfering it to the website before they start uploading video. This indemnifies the ISP, and puts the liability on the shoulders of the user of the website.

    Just as the RIAA went after P2P, the MPAA would have to go after the users and send youtube take down notices.

    Now had youtube not made users explicitly digitally sign an EULA, that would be rather catastrophic. Because now even with a home video they upload, they could force youtube to take content down at will. Youtube CAN NOT claim an implied contract, because the material has no direct monetary value for the site, and they can not claim the meterial is not copyrighted, because in the US, all authored content is copyrighted upon it’s creation.

    So youtube was very smart to have an EULA that users must read and sign.

    At this stage, they are only required to take down content that is copyrighted, where the copyright holder has notified them and in a reasonable time frame to escape liability.

  28. Additionally, implied contracts only apply when monetary value is exchanged. Such as you are using the electricity in a house when you move in and that is an implied contract with the electric company. If the item has no monetary value, such as a home video you upload, or texts you write, it can not be an implied contract.

    So unlike the MP3.com shutdown, where music could have a directly price value attached, video is quite different. You can’t say this video sells at target for $9.99 in a plastic case. You can’t even do that with TV show.

    So the user has to sign an explicit contract saying that they own the copyright and that they are transfering it to the website before they start uploading video. This indemnifies the ISP, and puts the liability on the shoulders of the user of the website.

    Just as the RIAA went after P2P, the MPAA would have to go after the users and send youtube take down notices.

    Now had youtube not made users explicitly digitally sign an EULA, that would be rather catastrophic. Because now even with a home video they upload, they could force youtube to take content down at will. Youtube CAN NOT claim an implied contract, because the material has no direct monetary value for the site, and they can not claim the meterial is not copyrighted, because in the US, all authored content is copyrighted upon it’s creation.

    So youtube was very smart to have an EULA that users must read and sign.

    At this stage, they are only required to take down content that is copyrighted, where the copyright holder has notified them and in a reasonable time frame to escape liability.

  29. Hey Robert and all, nothing here about YouTube – but, as the author of Dickless Marketing, I send you a big hug! Thanks for the link. I’m basking in my glory! To the person who said, “How long did it take her to come up with that title…” here’s the scoop – she (I) didn’t come up with it. The guy I was dating at the time came up with it! He’s very creative. We ran with it cause it reflects the oppositve of the Dick and Jane mentality of the 20th century – where everything centered around Dick. Today, Jane has the $$ and power.

    Meanwhile, yes, I knew it would be controversial. But, it’s been a lot of fun, too. The content is a serious look at marketing to women online…the title is a conversation starter. Funny thing is – men LIKE it more than women. Who knew?

    Hey, Robert – you’re the tops! (I always thought so – even before meeting you.) Meeting you was just ONE of the fantastic parts of Blogher. On to the blog now… must post, must post, must post…

  30. Hey Robert and all, nothing here about YouTube – but, as the author of Dickless Marketing, I send you a big hug! Thanks for the link. I’m basking in my glory! To the person who said, “How long did it take her to come up with that title…” here’s the scoop – she (I) didn’t come up with it. The guy I was dating at the time came up with it! He’s very creative. We ran with it cause it reflects the oppositve of the Dick and Jane mentality of the 20th century – where everything centered around Dick. Today, Jane has the $$ and power.

    Meanwhile, yes, I knew it would be controversial. But, it’s been a lot of fun, too. The content is a serious look at marketing to women online…the title is a conversation starter. Funny thing is – men LIKE it more than women. Who knew?

    Hey, Robert – you’re the tops! (I always thought so – even before meeting you.) Meeting you was just ONE of the fantastic parts of Blogher. On to the blog now… must post, must post, must post…

  31. @18. Wasn’t that basically the Napster defense? “Look, we just provide the service. We’ve told these people not to share copyrighted music. What more can we do?”

    Copyrighted material is copyrighted material, whether is has an artificial market price attached to it or not. I don’t think copyright laws address price.

    The risk YouTube might run into is profiting from the profiting from the ads they are running. The DMCA prohibits this.

    I do agree they seem to be taking the necessary steps to protect themselves, but the more popular these type of sites become, expect more lawsuits from copyright holders.

  32. @18. Wasn’t that basically the Napster defense? “Look, we just provide the service. We’ve told these people not to share copyrighted music. What more can we do?”

    Copyrighted material is copyrighted material, whether is has an artificial market price attached to it or not. I don’t think copyright laws address price.

    The risk YouTube might run into is profiting from the profiting from the ads they are running. The DMCA prohibits this.

    I do agree they seem to be taking the necessary steps to protect themselves, but the more popular these type of sites become, expect more lawsuits from copyright holders.

  33. “But people are really pissed and are talking up other services that let them keep control of their content.”

    And as soon as these small sites have major traffic and/or people start posting copyrighted material, they too will change their terms of service.

    Meanwhile, YouTube is already there, and people will discover that even though they give up rights to YouTube this will not prevent them from doing as they please with their content… that it simply covers YouTube’s @ss.

  34. “But people are really pissed and are talking up other services that let them keep control of their content.”

    And as soon as these small sites have major traffic and/or people start posting copyrighted material, they too will change their terms of service.

    Meanwhile, YouTube is already there, and people will discover that even though they give up rights to YouTube this will not prevent them from doing as they please with their content… that it simply covers YouTube’s @ss.

  35. “@18. Wasn’t that basically the Napster defense? “Look, we just provide the service. We’ve told these people not to share copyrighted music. What more can we do?””

    Napster made no effort or attempt to comply with takedown notices from authors. Nor do some other companies.
    AFAIK, youtube complied with ABC and the takedown notices it got and removes blatent copyrighted content when it becomes aware of it.

    But we digress…

    http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1834036,00.html

    Social networking is out, and YouTube is in. YouTube has now overpowered MySpace taking a larger portion of global internet visits a day.
    Last year, is well, last year, and this is the year of youtube and youtube-like sites. Let the gold rush re-begin!

  36. “@18. Wasn’t that basically the Napster defense? “Look, we just provide the service. We’ve told these people not to share copyrighted music. What more can we do?””

    Napster made no effort or attempt to comply with takedown notices from authors. Nor do some other companies.
    AFAIK, youtube complied with ABC and the takedown notices it got and removes blatent copyrighted content when it becomes aware of it.

    But we digress…

    http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1834036,00.html

    Social networking is out, and YouTube is in. YouTube has now overpowered MySpace taking a larger portion of global internet visits a day.
    Last year, is well, last year, and this is the year of youtube and youtube-like sites. Let the gold rush re-begin!

  37. YouTube is exceptional because its a stand-out, uniquely successful service. Things like MySpace currently sit in a “social networking” model occupiued by many players from facebook to blogging services. As such, YouTube’s massive success cannot be taken as an indicator that “social networking is out”.

    Oh, and has to be pointed out…good ole Grauniad failing to double check its articles as per usual: “Its success has been such that a price tag of as much as $1bn (£536bn)”. Half a trillion pounds?

  38. YouTube is exceptional because its a stand-out, uniquely successful service. Things like MySpace currently sit in a “social networking” model occupiued by many players from facebook to blogging services. As such, YouTube’s massive success cannot be taken as an indicator that “social networking is out”.

    Oh, and has to be pointed out…good ole Grauniad failing to double check its articles as per usual: “Its success has been such that a price tag of as much as $1bn (£536bn)”. Half a trillion pounds?