Lorne Michaels: “I think that YouTube is great, because if you do something like ‘Dick in a Box,’ someone in Pakistan can see it.”
(New York Observer).

Perhaps no other network show has gotten more out of the free video-sharing Web site than Saturday Night Live. Indeed, at the very moment the long-running program seems to be emerging from a years-long slump, producing sketches—not just lip-synch bloopers—that people actually want to share, discuss, and watch again and again, YouTube has been there, doing more to re-establish the show’s cultural relevance than any honcho at NBC.

If you have never seen the skit before, you can watch it in my video section here.

I am…underwhelmed.

The idea of Joost fascinates me. But the execution of the service drives me nuts. I don’t like that it takes over my screen. I don’t really like the content to choose from…yet.

I also have serious questions about how Joost will offer local news.

Network affliates are already up-in-arms about their networks subverting the affiliate model and giving away primetime programing away via iTunes or their own sites (ABC has a player for affiliate Web sites, so you if you missed LOST, you might be able to watch it on your local ABC station Web site). Though, online revenue share for TV stations is probably worse off than newspaper revenue share.

It will be interesting to see how local TV stations will handle the disruption caused by the Web.

There’s going to be a few changes to the site. One of those changes is adding a section for video.

There will likely be some bugs with the site over the next few days, so if you notice anything, drop me a line.

Anyway, here to officially launch the new site (even though it was up all day yesterday):

MC Karl Rove:

One of the first things I do when I discover something interesting is look it up on Wikipedia. I don’t know why, because Wikipedia truly is home to the C-grade high school paper, but I just do.

I guess Wikipedia quells my existential paranoia by showing me that other people believe something exists.

But ever since launch day, the Justin.tv article has been constantly deleted from Wikipedia by rogue admin (though he is a rouge admin, too) Chris Griswold. Here’s his excuse in the comments, finally posted today after days of silence:

I am tired of having to delete this article. Please show that the subject is notable so that the article does not qualify for a speedy deletion. Please see WP:WEB for information on how to do this. Additionally, you will need to work on the article either on this page or in userspace before I will again remove protection. –Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

After much complaint from people talking to him in his discussion page, he decided to unlock the article on the 25th, asking people to cite “reliable sources” in the entry, but then locked the page again today, hours before G4TV plans to have a piece on Attack of the Show.

So here it is folks. The site that gives Start Trek’s fictional Rules of Acquisition 1,450 words (not including references) credence, won’t give an interesting new business, with a groundbreaking mobile Webcam (at least compared to jennicam, which has an article here), a wiki page, because it’s not notable.

The privacy issues alone should warrant a Wikipedia article. But that’s not enough for Wikipedia and the lone, surly admin, Chris Griswold.

Let’s do a Google fight of “Justin.tv” vs. “Rules of Acquisition,” shall we?

Griswold doesn’t feel that something already covered by San Fransisco Chronicle, Wired, BusinessWire, the Associated Press, TechCrunch, CNET, blogged about by hundreds, and dugg by thousands more is in any way notable.

Honestly, I think Griswold has something against the guys at Justin.tv. He’s also marked the artlicle for the Web calendar, Kiko, for deletion. Kiko was created by many of the same group involved in Justin.tv.

This is the kind of wikiality Stephen Colbert dreams about at night.

General Council for Viacom, Michael Fricklas, wrote a column about the suit which has no digestible name. In it, he calls YouTube a media company, not a Web company, thereby negating YouTube’s DMCA protections:

YouTube has described itself as the place to go for video. It is far more than the kind of passive Web host or e-mail service the DMCA protects — it is an entertainment destination. The public at large is not attracted to YouTube’s storage facility or technical functionality — people are attracted to the entertainment value of what’s on the site.

Among many arguments, Viacom claims that YouTube “induces” users to upload copyrighted material, which looks like an argument out of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
which holds that software companies can be sued for copyright infringement by their users (by taking away safe harbor protections from Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios) and that these companies must take steps to stop copyright infringement through labeling, according to Judge Souter:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

YouTube does this all over the site, and tries to nip the bud right at initial upload, (on both upload pages):

Clearly, that angle isn’t going to cut it in court. YouTube goes above and beyond the labeling requirements all over the site. So like any good lawyering, Fricklas and Viacom manufacture other arguments, like saying not only does YouTube not fall under protections from the Betamax and Grokster cases, it doesn’t even fall under the DMCA.

They claim that YouTube isn’t a service provider, it’s an “entertainment destination” as if it were one or the other. Even if for every 5 million videos watched, only 50 are uploaded, YouTube is still an “entertainment destination” and a service provider because it does both.

This is where things get murky. Some tech lawyers have rallied behind Google and YouTube:

To try to treat it like a media company, denying it the protections of the DMCA, would be like treating eBay as a full-fledged product company, said Gregory Rutchik, a partner at The Arts and Technology Law Group. (link)

The problem with that logic is that, on eBay, you buy products directly from other sellers and eBay simply facillitates the transaction, they don’t house the products. YouTube does house the products, so to speak.

Viacom should enforce its copyright protections, and it may have a partial case here. But the whining needs to stop:

Is it fair to burden YouTube with finding content on its site that infringes others’ copyright? Putting the burden on the owners of creative works would require every copyright owner, big and small, to patrol the Web continually on an ever-burgeoning number of sites. That’s hardly a workable or equitable solution. And it would tend to disadvantage ventures such as the one recently announced by NBC Universal and News Corp. that are built on respect for copyright. Under the law, the obligation is right where it belongs: on the people who derive a benefit from the creative works and are in the position to keep infringement out of their businesses.

YouTube is well within its rights (assuming its protected under Title II of theDMCA):

(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—

“(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

“(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

“(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

So, please, Viacom, stop telling us how much you hate having to manage your own copyrights and (boo hoo) have to pay someone else to manage them for you. Obstructing markets is costly and hardly works (see the black market for guns and drugs if you need a reference point). Figure out how to go with the flow.

Around the Web: Related reading

Analysis of the Viacom/YouTube Showdown: Google’s Site May Have “Safe Harbor,” But Still Needs Media Allies for Suc (sic)
Viacom vs. YouTube: The Billion Dollar Question
PBS Analysis: Viacom Sues YouTube for Copyright Infringement
Viacom lawsuit could imperil Internet models

I don’t have Showtime but I do love public radio. If you’ve been under a rock for the past few weeks, you know that This American Life has been adapted for television. Since I don’t have Showtime and really can’t justify getting it for one show I may like, I was pretty disappointed until…

I found this.

The whole pilot episode is online. For free. I like free things.

There’s been some debate over whether or not the Web is going to dramatically change public relations (some have had the audacity to dub it–drum roll please–PR 2.0), but clearly where before you’d have to nibble on a blurb or two in papers and magazines about the Showtime program, now you can see it all for yourself.

I hesitate to call it PR 2.0, because media hustlers have always given away their products in one form or another. In the past it was just given to critics who in turn spit out 50 word blurbs in the back of Rolling Stone. With Web 2.0, everybody’s a critic, I suppose, so why not give your product away to everybody to build buzz for your radio-program-turned-television-program/death metal album/movie about carnies who get lost in outer space?

Anyway, the Showtime treatment of the radio favorite is worth a look.

For the past 30 hours or so, I’ve been infatuated with Justin.tv. Not because it’s a particularly interesting thing to watch, because it’s really, really not. Rather the application of the technology sorta blows my mind just thinking about the possibilities for this.

Justin.tv is basically a guy with a camera strapped to his head and a transmitter on his back, freeing him up to roam the streets of San Francisco while broadcasting a video stream on the site. I’d link to the wikipedia article for a better explanation, but it looks like Justin.tv is somehow too trivial for wikipedia (i didn’t even know that was possible).

In a quick chat with Justin.tv COO, Michael, he said he sees it as a “satellite truck in a backpack.” Essentially, Justin.tv is a gimmick to sell their idea. Certainly, watching Justin sleep isn’t all that interesting content, but the implications of the technology are far reaching and highly disruptive to traditional broadcasters if this can take off.

As for their plans, I’m not completely sure what they have up their sleeves. They’re going to be working with some bloggers in Iowa covering the upcoming caucuses, which could be interesting and they’re also looking for more people whose lives they can broadcast.

A few months ago, I saw how simple the backend for live video streaming through Flash Media Server can be implemented (through a client-side application in a browser, with a camera hooked up to the computer) and I instantly began to think about how journalists could use this in the field, provided they have a solid, high-speed connection to the Internet.

Looks like the folks at Justin.tv, Inc. found a work around for that by using four EVDO Rev A cards that can kick out the speeds needed for streaming live video.

Imagine the disruption that would cause to TV news, if anybody could broadcast an event live and cheaply (though, I wouldn’t call this set up anywhere near cheap, yet).

I’m calling it. In then next 2 to 5 years, live streaming on the net will be the norm for breaking news video online.