Tuesday's announcement of Viacom's $1B suit against Google/YouTube moves the new media challenge to a new plane.
The initial news story in the Wall Street Journal covered the expected terrain. It represented each side's views and legal position. Viacom owns the copyrights, while Google claims fair use doctrine.
Dauman, Redstone's returning lieutenant, has clearly shaken up the sluggish maneuvering between the two giants on this issue.
My consulting friend, S, believes this is simply Viacom's bid to force some sort of fee-based arrangement, and that it will never go to court. Perhaps so.
However, after reading CNBC analyst Paul Kedrosky's excellent editorial this morning in The Wall Street Journal, I am reconsidering my view on that.
Kedrosky feels that this suit is a misguided attempt by Viacom to attempt to stop the onrush of consumer demand to access and buy short clips of the video it wants. He likens it to the original Napster, and eventual legalization of single-song purchases on iTunes.
While S has maintained, and Kedrosky echos, that YouTube's airing of old Viacom material can only be a boon to the latter, the material does belong to Viacom. If they wanted YouTube doing this, they'd have asked.
To me, the reasonable and economic solution is for Viacom to realize two things. First, what most consumers want is an 'honest broker,' independent location on which to view any potential video material. Just as no single record company has ever successfully established a music website, I don't think any video content owner will do so, either.
To realize why, consider what has made Amazon, though profitless, so central to ordering printed media. You can find anything there. I believe the same will hold true for video. Thus, Viacom's best shot is to distribute through YouTube.
Second, all Viacom needs to do is demand a small slice of ad revenues from the pages on which its videos play, plus arrange for an instant, 'push-button purchase' option. Simply locate a "buy this video now" button that takes the viewer to a Viacom or YouTube checkout, and pay YouTube a percentage of the sales price.
Nobody wants to sit in front of a PC viewing endless video clips to approximate a season of any television program. YouTube's clips are for instant gratification, not long-term enjoyment.
Viacom is missing the point here with their lawsuit. As Kedrosky points out, Viacom may well win, if it goes to court, simply on the basis of their undisputed ownership of the material.
But Viacom will lose the war. Google/YouTube will remain a nexus for all sorts of professional and amateur video. But Viacom will have cut off its nose to spite its face, if it boycotts YouTube in the future, after reaping the one-time billion dollar damages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment