YouTube is the future.... why can't big media get that?

Unless you've been living under the internet equivalent of a rock (and I don't mean that in a judgemental way), you know that big media outfit Viacom is trying to sue Google for all the copyrighted material they host, courtesy of their large user base. It's also no secret that Viacom has been busy issuing take-down notices to Google for any copyrighted material it claims as its own. What you may not know is that Viacom convinced a judge to force Google to hand over every YouTube user's details (user names, IP addresses and videos watched). This is because Viacom wants to prove that on YouTube, infringing material is more prevalent and popular than user-created videos, which shores up their argument that Google is guilty of contributory infringement.

EFF doesn't think turning over this information is a good idea as it's a complete trampling over privacy rights. OK......... here we go.

Big media is absolutely right. Their material IS more popular than user-created content - but not for the reason they think. The thing that I wish big media realized is that the internet isn't the enemy - it's a view into the future. Think about it. Napster had the right idea. They just didn't have the approval of big media because big media wasn't getting their cut. Big media also didn't appreciate the value of a new business model of distributing media online (for a nominal fee) until someone else showed it to them. Because big media is stuck in the past, trying to wring out every last dollar out of an antiquated model that has been superseded by innovative technology that they themselves admit to not understanding. YouTube et al also have the right idea. Because when someone wants to see material they like, they don't want to wait for re-broadcasts (that rarely occur) or physical media to be sold. Because the internet makes it possible to watch what you want..... now. It offers a service that big media (and the folks who distribute it old-school) has the ability to do, but not the willpower. There is no technological reason why every movie and TV program ever made can't be made electronically available on any device on demand. Yeah sure, you've got pay-per-view on demand, but come on - what's on tap is but a drop in the bucket and you can only get it on TV.

The only place you can get access to media on demand is on the internet. Ironically, this access - often low quality or incomplete for the most part, is the only method many folks have to get access to some material at all. I've lost count of the number of times I've fallen in love with a program only to see it disappear from big media forever. Especially if it's produced outside the country. Big media has begun to get it - offering some content online at their own sites, but they ruin the experience by not letting folks in other countries get access. This is counter-productive - how do you build buzz about programming if you only let locals watch it? The best thing big media could do about the overwhelming popularity of their content hosted online by unrestrictive hosts is to learn from it and start to build the business model necessary to do the same thing - themselves - with their own advertising revenue stream.

Don't hate the view of the future the YouTubes of the world have given you. Embrace it. You'll be glad you did.

[update] Helen Popkin echos some of the things I said here and more in her article on the YouTube vs. Viacom debacle.