YouTube Motions Highlight How Entertainment Industry Lawsuits May Have Slowed Useful Platforms

from the letting-business-models-develop dept

We've already written up an analysis of the motions for summary judgment in the Viacom/Google YouTube lawsuit, suggesting that Google's arguments seem stronger. It still seems unlikely that either motion will persuade the judge to skip a trial altogether, but the motions are certainly a bit of a preview of what to expect at any trial. Most of the analysis out there sort of reiterates the talking points in the two motions, but Eric Goldman highlighted an important point that got me thinking in that time is working against Viacom here, as YouTube becomes more and more entrenched as a useful platform by the day:
Perhaps more importantly, the intervening time has been good to YouTube as a business and as a brand. In this sense, compare Grokster to YouTube. At the time of the Grokster cases, it was still very much an open question whether Grokster would ever evolve into a tool where legitimate activity dominated. While we might still have had that same question about YouTube in 2006, by 2010 YouTube has answered that question resoundingly. YouTube's business practices have matured, everyone has had positive legitimate experiences with YouTube (even behind-the-curve judges), and it's clear that major legitimate players have adopted YouTube as a platform for their legitimate activities. For example, YouTube's brief makes the point that all of the 2008 presidential candidates published YouTube videos as part of their campaign. I'm guessing no 2004 presidential candidates used Grokster for campaign purposes.

So as time goes on, YouTube solidifies a brand as a legitimate part of our information infrastructure. As we learn that the YouTube story has a happy ending, I suspect judges become less interested in punishing YouTube for past practices. For this reason (and others), I thought a lot of Viacom's inducement arguments ran hollow because they ran counter to my brand impressions of YouTube. I would also note that Viacom appears to be giving up its litigation over activity after May 2008, so even Viacom seems to be happy with YouTube in its current form.
Goldman goes on to point out that this may bring up some challenges heretofore unfaced in determining how the "inducement" standard works -- but, to me, it brings up an even more important issue: similar lawsuits against Napster and Grokster moved faster. Lots of people have commented on the fact that this particular lawsuit has taken three years from filing just to get to the summary judgment motions to be filed -- and during that time, Goldman is correct, YouTube has had a chance to mature, refine its business model, and do many things that we now find to be quite beneficial to society.

The same thing likely would have happened to both Napster and Grokster, if they had been given a chance to live. Executives behind each company repeatedly laid out strategies to mature their business models and to work as partners with the industry. It's just that they never got a chance to put those into practice because these sorts of lawsuits and rulings from judges forced them (effectively) out of business. In YouTube's case, the slow pace of this particular lawsuit has allowed it to firmly establish tons of viable, useful, valuable non-infringing uses -- to the point that it's a platform used by tons of companies, politicians, individuals and more. If Napster and Grokster had been given half a chance, they likely would have been able to evolve similarly.

And this is what is so painful about watching all these attempts by the entertainment industry to kill off any new technology that disrupts an old business model. These lawsuits kill off those technologies before the natural progression and maturation is allowed -- and because of that, we all suffer.

Now, some will scoff and claims that Grokster was never going to turn into what YouTube is today, but you're saying that with the gift of hindsight. A large part of Viacom's motion tries to suggest that the two companies actually were quite similar -- but even Viacom is now admitting that YouTube's business model was able to mature and adapt. Considering that we still don't have music discovery, promotion and distribution tools as convenient as Napster was back in the day, this can be seen as a real shame. These lawsuits killed off a useful path of exploration for legitimate business models, and that's not only shameful but a waste of innovative effort. It's only through the random quirk of a slow court that YouTube may avoid suffering the same fate.

Filed Under: copyright, innovation, lawsuits, platforms, stifling
Companies: google, viacom, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    "RIAA saw it as a platform that can eventually be used to help people compete with them by releasing free CC license music in the long term, not because it harmed their short term sales."

    LOL ... These corporations are into their quarterly returns. Its the mentality that pervades corporations today. I agree the long term goal of the labels is to save the record labels. You need to start with the short term to make the long term work. In the short term RIAA is alienating their customer base, price fixing their product, stopping any innovation that they could use to help them, and not heeding what the market wants or will bear. This is forcing an evolution of methodologies and applications that circumvent every possible future move they can make and law they can get passed. That doesnt show any sort of real thought for the future or planning.

    Studying the results of what they have done in the past seems to elude them. They get tougher laws passed in Sweden, Korea, France, etc and people use different tools to infringe on content. This infringement is now hidden behind a wall of encryption. They declare it a victory because it is no longer seen. They create studies whose outcome is predetermined to show how this has worked as a method to deter infringement. Then they believe their own biased studies and use them to march forward blindly.

    The psychology behind this is really neat and actually based on the stages of grieving. What is really interesting is the fact that you have different groups in different stages of grieving. This allows for hope to remain as the stage 3 guys fail, they look around and find the stage 2 guys, and say "look they might have something that works" and hop on the stage 2 band wagon.

    This reminds me alot of the story of Tantalus ... to stand in a pool of water beneath a fruit tree with low branches. Whenever he reached for the fruit, the branches raised his intended meal from his grasp. Whenever he bent down to get a drink, the water receded before he could get any.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.