Hollywood and YouTube: Friends or Foes?
Yesterday's NY Times has an interesting article about the coming battles between Hollywood studios and Google-owned YouTube, which are in negotiations for a licensing deal that will avoid the copyright hassles that shut down Napsters, Grokster, and other file-sharing sites. Estimates of the amount of "Hollywood-derived content" on YouTube--actual clips and original mash-ups--run between 20 percent and 70 percent of all content on the site. Some snippets:
YouTube distributes unauthorized clips of the movies that the studios spend an average of $96 million to make. But it can also help them build tremendous buzz, and that is driving Hollywood to try to work with it instead of against it….
"I think studios will sue if they don't get a licensing deal they like," said Jessica Litman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. "My guess is if I were a movie studio, getting a cut of the money is more profitable than shutting it down. But it's complicated, very complicated, and it's only going to get worse."…
"I think that the marketing side of our company and the copyright-protection side have contradictory impulses," [Universal chief Marc] Shmuger said. "But there is a huge appetite for content, and we are well-advised to recognize that appetite and find constructive ways to feed it."
Mr. Shmuger said the studios need to embrace sites like YouTube because they are the future of movie marketing. "If you want to be involved in the cultural debate, you have to allow consumers to be more actively involved," he said. "That's a different world order which we are not used to."…
It's encouraging when a studio head, of all people, recognizes that the old top-down modes of cultural production are like, so 20th century. Yet the Times' article notes that Universal Music sued MySpace for copyright infringement recently and that when Google bought YouTube, it put aside some $200 million to cover copyright-related lawsuits. And the story is thick with Big Content gurus admitting that yes, they like the Napoleon Dynamite-Eminem mashup but that it's still piracy don't you know.
And the Director's Guild, last seen attacking CleanFlicks for pixallating Kate Winslet's Titanic breasts, is taking a hard line against anyone messing with product.
Reason review of Jessica Litman's excellent Digital Copyright here.
Reason on Big Content vs. Silicon Valley, a.k.a Hollywood vs. the Internet here.
Reason on mash-ups here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is Hollywood's next move now that Time's Person Of The Year has been named a suspect in their ongoing copyright dragnet?
Lamar,
Hilarious.
The only reason Hollywood is losing money to YouTube is because people get to see what utter shite they're releasing before wasting their money it at the cinema.
That's idiotic, Patrick. YouTube hasn't yet made a cent. It's creators have done well, though.
Reason #359,986 to do away with copyright
I didn't mean to imply that the money was going TO YouTube, but that Hollywood was losing money BECAUSE OF YouTube. Shows what I get for trying to avoid two "becauses" in one sentence.
I often think I missed my calling, that I should have gone to film school and become a director. Then I remember that the Director's Guild is a bunch of jackasses.
Does anyone know who they would be suing? Would it be YouTube, the people who post to YouTube, or anyone who looks at a particular video on YouTube that they consider to be in violation of copyright?
They would sue YouTube. The individual who posted the infringing content probably doesn't have enough money to be worth the legal fees. The person who looks at the infringing content is usually not sued, though IIRC, they are open to being sued because they have a copy of the infrining material in their computer's cache.
'Shmuger'?