Posted by Steven Benjamin on April 10, 2009, 10:18 am, in reply to "Clarification..."
You are right that it is the AP using scare tactics. But the radio Station was FULLY aware of it's rights concerning YouTube, You can hear the DJ in a phone conversation in the YouTube Video at the bottom of the page which the first link connects to detailing this fact. STILL they had to remove the content. A CEASE AND DESIST order was issued by a JUDGE to bring such about.
In College, anticipations to such a timeframe as this was also noted by instructors. THERE ARE MULTIPLE industries beyond the AP who wish to see the very thing the AP is trying to do, come to fruition. There are mass amounts of copyright infringements going on every second of the day online, and this eqivalates to a loss of income to somebody.
THe only reason it hasn't been addressed before now, is because of the enourmous expense it will involve, and the AP is certainly in for an UPHILL battle. You may note upon listening to that video, that, the radio station DJ was further perplexed by being served with a cease and desist order, because HIS STATION IS AN AP AFFILIATE!
The AP, chose a front the knew they would WIN.
This is not an accident. They may well have been baiting such an affiliate with thier YouTube Placement.
While they on one hand find themselves with mud on thier face, for truly 'seemingly' not knowing the very policies of the YouTube videos to which they upload. Upon wiping that mud off, they will but simply disable the embed function in the future, and still stand with a victory on thier first chosen front.
This is setting the stage to challenge "FAIR USE" at a public level. IT may well soon do likewise at an educational level, but not for sometime.
BY including the embed code on YouTube loaded content, they are indeed allowing others certain permissions to the content.
I don't think their intent however was to "WIN" a battle over YouTube loaded content. This is the AP, a Multi "Gazillion" dollar industry, with SCORES OF LAWYERS just to insure the grains in the toilet paper they wipe thier butts with is up to a certain standard, I have no doubt they are very aware of YouTube's policy, and even if 'seemingly' embarrassed in this, I think such still serves to a greater end game to challenge FAIR USE from an industry perspective, and it has been a long time coming.
If they do win, it will be a long, long uphill series of battles.
Currently their are other THRIVING news agencies who predict this to be a dooming move by the AP, and who knows, maybe they will prove right.
But this involves musicians whose lyrics are uploaded to the net for free, this involves the regular book industries whose contents are loaded onto the net for free.
Face it, the internet is NOT, the public library.
Sure it may be FREE, and it may seem BETTER, and for those at the user end, it is, but even LIBRARIES HAVE TO BUY THE BOOKS THEY PUT ON THIER SHELVES.
This results in lost revenues to a great deal of people...no more lost books, mean no more copies to have to be replaced. One definitive ONLINE location for a book, means THOUSANDS, and THOUSANDS of libraries across the land with NO NEED FOR A HARD COPY...that translates to THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of Dollars multiplied exponentially to match the cover price for each book no longer needing to be placed.
Online Magazine archives, both official and non official, the non official providing even a loss of revenue to magazines such as TIME who carried David Koresh's image on a cover in 1993 with a caption quoting a passage from the book of Revelation, "HIS NAME IS DEATH..."
So many outlets are effected by the internet proving on some levels to a loss of income.
NOW, while the AP may be hoping for others to align with them at some point for a multi industry steam rolling effect, what will determine such participation or rise of such event will be those factors which determine if it generates greater income to attach advertising dollars to FREE content in the form of ad banners and pop ups, and keep CURRENT user participation, or to CHARGE for content that is currently free.
One of the key factors in this will depend on users. REMEMBER PEOPLE SAYING...."I WONT PAY OVER TWO DOLLARS FOR GAS...NOT ME!"
Remember those statements just a few years ago.
Yeah, I made such statements about paying "2.50"
but you know what, I paid it. So did everbody else. There is a certain aspect in this, if the CONSUMER had BOYCOTTED OPEC, I mean really boycotted, GAS WOULD have went back down in price, and would not have risen again. But Boycotts started by those without enough steam to follow through, and OPEC increased the pressure to prove a point, don't think this doesn't play into anti American attitudes with the war, or even CAPTIOLIST capotilozing on a this Capotolist nation.
So, the industry, will have to determine JUST HOW HOOKED on internet we truly are. I'd say, were pretty hooked. Sure, we'll moan and groan when Internet gas reaches $2.25 a gallon, but I don't think much will change if it does. This really at this point depends more on INDUSTRY and advertising dollars being genertated by allowing free content as opposed to loss of the same from regulating access than it does the consumer.
I guess we will have to wait and see. But In the meantime, I don't think the AP is making veiled threats. I think just like napster, the first wave will be a long line of cease and desist orders. As many will abide, for failure to be able to deal with further leagal actions and the expense such could incurr.
THE AP, is perhaps THE LEADING news agency on the planet, I wouldn't underestimate them to have arrived to that position with a team of STUPID LAWYERS.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread