We know what an agent provocateur is right? A person that incites, usually one of a group of people looking to advance a response to an unwanted action. So, for instance, an agent provocateur would go into a crowd that is acting rationally, and cause an uproar so the crowd becomes uncontrollable, thus allowing the police, or a counter-group to say “See!? They are horrible, we must shut them down!”
From the Google Blog posting regarding the case:
Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube — and every Web platform — to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.
Could Viacom have used the internet version of the agent provocateur tactic? What I’m coining as Toile D’araignee Provocateur; or Inciting Spiderweb. Probably a crude translation as I don’t speak French, but the idea comes from the fact that Viacom and YouTube have been in a courtroom over copyrighted material being uploaded on YouTube and a $1 BILLION suit being filed.
As it reads [thanks to TechCrunch for posting it on their site], and Google’s Blog, Viacom marketing agents uploaded Viacom material to promote the offerings Viacom had on television and at the same time, Viacom litigation was taking place suggesting that YouTube knowingly and willfully encouraged users to do so in an attempt to curry favor and become popular.
Then later on at TechCrunch (again), Erick Schonfeld writes about it, citing a blog post. In a nutshell, the spiderweb became so bogged down with bugs and a fat spider that it couldn’t manage what was going on. And instead of just writing it off and starting over, they decide to litigate. Starting over consists of Viacom saying to Google, “Okay, we want a Viacom channel and the ability to remove content easier,” like a dedicated account manager [Dear Google, I'll do that from my home office if you'd like.]
One thing that I went back and read was the original posting by Michael Arrington on TechCrunch titled “Viacom Drops a $1 Billion Nuke on Google” and starts out with “They said that Google’s acquisition of YouTube would be the act that saved it from the fate of Napster – lawsuit oblivion.”
That comment, apparently by Viacom is a gross understatement of the effect that Napster had on the Internet. Napster single-handedly made MP3s the most popular format for audio and sales. It isn’t the best format, but people adopted MP3s to a greater extent because of Napster and was a proof-of-concept for every distribution model since Napster litigation ended. Napster wasn’t destroyed, it became a martyr for the cause of FREE!
I suppose after 3 years of pursuing this white whale, you may forget what went on, where it went, how it went. But that stock ticker keeps reminding you that the whale is out there and you have a brand new unused harpoon just sitting there leaning against the wall.
Related posts:
You must log in to post a comment.