The uploading and sharing of video on the Internet must be a bonanza for copyright lawyers, be they in defense or prosecution of the practice. In addition to the endless supply of amateur video clips, generations of television and movies, music videos of all kinds, and even commercials are freely and readily available on video-sharing websites like YouTube.
This great stash of video being aired sans proper channels poses several interesting questions. For instance, do unearthed TV clips and episodes from long discarded television shows create value where there previously was none? The Internet offers a capacity to cater to previously overlooked finite niches; access to episodes of, say, TV’s Big Ben should awaken a viewership and thus add value to the property. But when should the owners of Big Ben’s rights be allowed to step in for some profit? It’s tough to say since this whole process is unprecedented, but be sure that it will be heavily contested; litigious cases are already rolling in.
We see Universal Music Group calling out YouTube for letting users play at computer “vee-jay”. This is reminiscent of the infamous Napster debacle, except with Universal and YouTube it’s largely the videos we all saw on MTV instead of illegal music downloads. Get it together guys, you’ve got a good thing, don’t kill it. Imagine what a little patience could have done for those record companies who crushed Napster. They must see the success of Apple’s iTunes and wince. Napster was king of the music downloads field before the record companies dismantled it and instead of ending piracy they only dispersed it. They could have let it go until a means to corral its utility was found; the missing virtue was patience.
Earlier this year, Bill Gates at Microsoft must have had an inkling of the dangers of copyright infringement (or a tweak of his conscience?) when he remarked to the Wall Street Journal: “If we did YouTube, we'd be in a lot of trouble. First of all, people would say, "How do you make money?" Second, they'd say, what about all that copyright violation taking place up there.“
Interesting. Yet, now Microsoft is launching the beta version of “Soapbox”, a video-sharing site designed to counter Google Video and/or dethrone YouTube as king of its field.
And how does YouTube make money, anyway? Advertising, right? The truth is YouTube hasn’t figured it out yet and that uncertainty is probably why Microsoft gets involved. No one wants to miss potential profits in an emerging field and Microsoft is willing to risk that despite Gates’ points of skepticism.
Currently YouTube signs deals with networks to play certain material, but conventional pay schemes will not proportionately monetize the revolutionary service of video-sharing. YouTube streams millions of videos a day and few who read these words are unfamiliar with the site. This kind of bandwidth is costly and looming legal costs must be dampening any rosy short term hopes of revenue generation.
Nevertheless, according to Nielsen, 34 million viewers visited YouTube last month and viewership is what drives the interactive business – you can’t fake numbers. Any media company or software giant that is turned off by those kinds of numbers in the face of such pedestrian worries like lack of current revenue or legal fears lacks the vision to make it in this field. Consider what those reactive record companies lost when underestimating the Napster’s potential.
Digg 
