Simon Abramovitch

I got into an argument recently with a friend of mine about the conflict between Viacom and YouTube, and user-submitted website content. To sum up the situation, back in March 2007, Viacom had it in for (sued) Google’s YouTube, claiming it didn’t do enough to stop copyright infringement by users uploading. As soon as any complaint was registered, YouTube removed the content. Viacom insisted that too much slipped through. Since then, some agreements have been reached between the two parties, but I still feel like the bigger questions have been left unresolved. I was very curious to see what precedents would be set, what internet history was to be made. But the lawsuit made bigger headlines than the resolution, and all that’s left now is the red YouTube text letting you know why the content that’s still in their CMS (as far as you can pointlessly search it) is not actually able to be viewed.

While I’m generally not first in line to defend a large, profitable corporation like Viacom, and while I think their reliance on TV distribution - being unable to compromise online - is a bit pathetic, I’m shocked to notice that most of the people with whom I speak take Google’s side, in a definitive stance. The argument I hear most often is that entirely too many videos are submitted to YouTube for them to be responsible for its monitoring. Really? I mean… really!?

Running a website, you have just about complete control over it. YouTube runs by its own rules, and those rules are what make it impossible for them to watch the entirety of the content of their site. How, I wonder, is that Viacom’s problem? If you can’t keep an eye on what your site does, hire more people or change how the site functions. Is that not obvious? While I understand and appreciate the joys of user-submitted content, the pitfalls must be recognized. As long as anonymity is maintained, the problems remain. A possible solution would be to make everyone register with their real names, maybe with a credit card signup for $0. That way, if any illegal content is uploaded, you know who’s to share the blame with the site owner. Keeping things anonymous, you ask for trouble. Google likes to have its cake and eat it too, it seems. As long as Google/YouTube do keep their users anonymous (which is, of course, essential to maximize their user base), they must retain full responsibility for the offenses of their members.

The bottom line is that any site owner is ultimately responsible for the content displayed on their site. Especially when the content is video, how can more precautions not be taken? Imagine someone runs a site that allows people to submit adult videos, and that site ends up habitually loaded with child pornography. Is it up to the site owner to wait until there is a complaint to remove the offending files, or is the site owner immediately responsible? As far as the law goes, the site owner’s in a lot of trouble. I don’t see why the situation should be any different with YouTube.

When I bring up this point, the answer is of course that we’re not talking about child pornography, we’re talking about copyrighted TV programming. While I agree that there is indeed a difference in scale, that difference is not categorical, and should not be interpreted as fundamental enough to warrant differential treatment. The fact is, both are illegal content, and in both cases, the owner of the site is responsible for the display of that content. Because one is more grotesquely illegal than the other is not the point.

Many who concede up to here still insist that if this is the case, YouTube can’t function as it’s meant to. Again, so? And again, how is that Viacom’s problem? Even then, is it really impossible? Do we remember who we’re dealing with, here? This is Google. This surely cannot be a question of available resources. Google could hire a hundred people to screen the videos without breaking their bank. The answer I usually get is that with that level of screening, the site wouldn’t be nearly as good. Finally! The truth comes out. Seems like surfers want to have and eat from Google’s cake, too.