YouTube cracks down on Bowl Videos
Setting aside the reasoning that the videos violated the copyright of organisations such as Collegiate Images, LLC, 20th Century Fox, and ESPN, it is absolutely displeasing to see them cracking down on users that were posting videos such as the great and exciting 2007 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl where Boise State defeated Oklahoma in overtime, or the winning field goal by Boston College over Navy in the Meineke Car Bowl.
The bowl postseason is something that most people want to remember, either at the stadium where the game is being played, or in front of the television set, or sitting in front of the computer. Any of these users trying to sell these videos for profit? Of course not. Everyone knows that on espn.com, you can see the full highlights for about a week, then it gets put in their archive section, where you need to pay a subscription fee to access it.
Perhaps ESPN, Fox, and other collegiate groups want you to pay them to watch those exciting games again online or force you to wait till the DVD disc comes out.
Imagine if it will lead to independent video takers going to the bowl games and being able to show raw footage of these games without censorship or pressure? Sure, it lacks the sound effects of the Fox theme song or the multiple-view angle, but it will preserve the spirit and passion of the fans themselves.
If these groups are busy cracking down on illegal bootlegs of these wonderful games, how about posting them on YouTube under their official accounts? If they want to get users to visit ESPN.com, FOX.com, or anywhere else, they should post these videos. All in the name of good publicity.
What's next? It will promote users to rip the videos from TiVo and other DVR recorders into Divx or Mpeg format, burn them to disc or file, and distribute via friends, or DC++, or BitTorrent. It's nothing new, and this will always happen.
Comments
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: January 4, 2007 10:01 PM
You do not need to make money to violate copyright. To post videos without permission, you are harming the profits of the company that legally made the video.
If they allow minor violations of copyright, than it becomes very hard for them to protect the copyright for larger pieces. The snow ball starts rolling down hill and never stops.
Do I think it is greedy? Maybe.
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 5, 2007 06:21 AM
I am trying to find out whether it is reasonable nowadays. There are some games where a lot of people want to see the replay especially Boise State's Statue of Liberty play that won it for them. ESPN News would do the recaps the next two days after the game, then you can access the highlights off their website, but after all of that, it is placed in their 360 archive which you need to pay to get access to it.
It is similar to when we were nearing the 9/11 anniversary, users were posting videos of that day, and some of the news networks were asking YouTube to take them off because they violated copyright. Would that fall under the reasonable argument that users were violating copyright or it seems unfair to tell users that they cannot show videos of the attacks?
It would be great to discuss the issue of whether profits are being harmed. If a user posts the last 30 seconds of the bowl game showing the winning play versus the entire game, are they treated equally? YouTube did crack down and limit videos to 10 minutes max to combat movie and tv uploads.
But I have to note that since these bowl games are quite popular, they should post the videos themselves on YouTube to generate publicity and get people to visit their web sites. A good PR move, don't ya think?
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: January 5, 2007 08:20 AM
I agree it would be a great PR move. The problem I believe with media, especially TV, is often several groups may own portion of the copyrights. It is not as simple as a single network saying yes lets share it, unless that was negotiated with all the people involved in the copyright agreements. Another problem with media producers freely putting more on the Internet is that their competition now as the same access as the individuals. Even YouTube benefits financially from users coming to its site for those clips.
Also, a big part of copyright is how important the tiny piece is to the whole meaning of a work. That 30 seconds might be the most important part of the game as it shows the entire outcome.
Yes it violates copyright, unless they filmed it themselves. Copyright protects the rights of reproduction, derivative creation, distribution, public performance, and public display. If the media companies cannot enforce their rights, how can we expect individuals to be offered the same protection.While I agree media companies could share more in order to drive business, they are offered the same protections as you and me. We cannot force them to give up rights to copyright, anymore than you or I could do the same.
Posted by: Julian Greigh
Posted on: February 19, 2007 05:32 PM
YouTube does list the name of the company that demanded removal of copyrighted content, so it is possible to have your voice heard by sending them an email, if you think the removal was unreasonable. YouTube is not to blame here the companies sueing YouTube are! Most of us complain but rarely email the company that demanded content be removed. If profit is the motivation for strict copyright enforcement, then a lot of us taking our money elseware (and letting the offending companies know it via email) will give them motivation to stop being so picky!
Just because you have the right to do something does not always mean you should.