Communication: The YouTube phenomenon (Research Paper Sample)

The YouTube Phenomenon
Student's Name
Institution
The YouTube Phenomenon
Introduction
Since the time the three PayPal employees launched the video-sharing website, YouTube, it has grown into a phenomenal company that hosts millions of videos per hour. Although not much information reveals about its capacity, the available data is staggering: in December 2010, Google estimated that 100 million users posted and watched over 4 billion short films on YouTube. There is a wide variety of content that is uploaded in the website ranging from music, comedy, sports, as well as news and politics. Unfortunately, as content providers capture videos and upload them, some people and organizations are lamenting about the success of YouTube. The focus of this paper is to explore how YouTube phenomenon has resulted to copyright infringement. The paper will look into operations of YouTube: terms and rights of posting videos and music, as well as, copyrights settings.
The content posted on YouTube website has become popular, and it receives millions of likes. The website has developed new communication trend these days, where people create super films and music while in their homesteads. They start earning from the number of hits they get on the content they upload (Baumann, 2012). The content providers are obsessed with uploading super hit materials, and are doing everything to achieve this. Consequently, YouTube has continued to generate several super hit videos ranging from all facets of life.
While YouTube phenomenon is empowering transmission of videos, it is destroying people’s businesses. Before the era of YouTube, it was hard to distribute video contents over large audiences in different parts of the world using internet. Nowadays, YouTube has shown it is possible to even eclipse television’s programs for audiences. For instance, the number of people who watched the final episodes of Weekends with Maury and Connie on YouTube were twice as many as those who viewed it on television broadcast after its launch (Miller, 2009). This is a frightening statistics for film developers and traditional video distributors. YouTube phenomenon is killing their businesses by eliminating selling points as well as blocking avenues for creating new films.
YouTube has regularly found itself creating much attention for possible lawsuits from numerous organizations and individuals. For instance, the disagreement started erupting after Google acquired the company, in October of 2006, for a price valued at $1.65billion (Miller, 2009). The acquisition process made it possible for content providers to target Google for its massive finances. Previous, YouTube was not worth for suing since it was a small company. Contents providers feared that damages would have been limited; obtaining court injunctions against the people who posted the videos would be costly and with insignificant benefits.
How YouTube Developed through Copyright Infringement
Although YouTube started by posting contents that was protected by copyrights, it was hard to sue it since the process of assessing the data was complex. Also, the users of YouTube at the same time posted significant amount of legitimate information. For instance, people posted data that they predominantly created. The concept of legitimacy expanded quickly as people started posting information that was new and original. In August 2006, YouTube launched a new advertising model in which it allowed people to use it as an avenue for advertising and making revenues (Stritar, DrnovsÌŒek and Wincent, 2013). The deal also included organizations which benefited from their information advertised through the YouTube wall. Some of the numerous companies that forged a deal with YouTube included Cepic Records, Atlantic Records, Music Companies such as Sony and Fox Searchlight (Miller, 2009). The organizations came into an agreement with YouTube they would allow their contents providers to upload their songs.
After some time, the organizations realized that YouTube tricked them to sign copyrights agreements. The agreements were not lucrative as it appeared before. However, it was difficult to stop YouTube for infringement litigation (Shenkman, 2008). YouTube continued to grow into a phenomenal company, expanding on pillars of illegitimate posted videos. For instance, after some months of signing a deal with YouTube, CBS realized that its content was now viewed online instead of the initial agreement of promoting its brand. In 2006, CBS discovered that nearly 30 million viewers accessed its contents through YouTube (Shenkman, 2008). This represented a small margin of benefit gained by CBS leading to open accusations. Three of the most viewed short films on YouTube in October 2006 were CBS videos. The contents were uploaded illegally, further empowering the dispute for legitimacy.
By that time, the Digital Millennium Copyright had minimal powers to control video hosting services. Also, the laws that were meant to enforce copyright liability on the internet, as well as to protect content providers were passive (Shenkman, 2008). Furthermore, the agreements that YouTube signed with Music organizations, for it to allow its contents providers to post music on its website deemed to collapse on any copyrights lawsuits. Currently, only two lawsuits have been filed against YouTube regarding copyrights infringements.
Viacom against YouTube
Viacom, on March 13, 2007, filed a case against YouTube regarding copyrights infringements. The case was such significant since it was the first dispute between two media giants. The case amounted to a potential damage of $ 1 billion in which Viacom was seeking to be paid by YouTube (Khanova, 2013). Although the case was settled outside the court, it raised questions about YouTube’s business model of allowing its content providers to post any information. Consequently, the strategic decision for it to create room for sharing advertisements revenues, as well as the lawsuits with Viacom called into inquiry whether its business methods were and are legitimate. Also, the way YouTube solved the court dispute with Vaicom raised further questions about what the two media giants agreed on regarding the copyrights infringements. Nevertheless, YouTube must have paid Vaicom million of dollars for it to agree to end the case. This is because, the initial amount of money Vaicom filed a case against YouTube was too much for it considers insignificant payments (Khanova, 2013).
Terms of Use and Copyright for YouTube
As a rule, every YouTube user is solely responsible for information that they post on its website. However, they must meet the authorized age to use the site. YouTube tries to exempt itself from claims of copyrights infringements using this clause. It is supposed to accept liability for information posted on its website. When contents providers post information on YouTube’s websites, they agree that they have granted it free-royalty and non-exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and display the data (Khanova, 2013). Therefore, YouTube is supposed to be liable for copyright infringements since it becomes the holder of the information. On the list of the term of use of its site, it states that it bears the right to remove posted information that infringes copyrights. Although this shows that it is committed to protecting other people works, it is supposed to put enforcement policies of ensuring that copyright contents is not posted on its site.
The Business Model
The studies have shown that Youtube was paying approximately $1 million per month for its bandwidth. Since Youtube started a free service initially, the bill was too big for it to sustain. Hence, it turned to advertising to make money for paying its costs. Its business model became similar to that of television where it has to pay its contents providers while consumers pay through accessing the information. After Google acquired YouTube, this strategy was been successfully implemented (Shackelford, 2012).
People blame the new business model as the main factor that contributes towards copyrights infringements. For instance, if someone launches new music, scrupulous people can illegally upload content, and start enjoying payment benefits. If the song becomes a hit, these people have a chance to earn even more. Also, these culprits target the popular contents, rearranges to appear different, and post them on YouTube.
In August of 2006, before Google bought YouTube, it announced a plan to develop a technology that would battle copyrighted content on its website. The affected parties, Music Organizations and Film Productions companies supported this idea. The technology was supposed, automatically, to detect materials that users copyrighted and uploaded without absolute rights from media houses and the owners (Gorman, Ginsburg and Reese, 2011). The technology was supposed to disallow information such as films, music, as well as self-created videos incorporating copyrighted music. The systems identifying audio was intended to detect unauthorized non-music information, as well. The technology would have been a big blow to people who copy others works. Also, the software was supposed to reduce the copyrights holders’ role of detecting unlicensed information on YouTube.
Currently, if someone copy others work and upload on the YouTube, it is hard for the owner to track down. YouTube has not put any practical enforcement to ensure that people get information on what is circulating within its system (Yang and Yuen, 2010). The ways the systems work is complex and impossible to follow, and only by sheer luck that people can identify that their work is copyrighted. Consequently, YouTube phenomenon makes it possible for people to copy others work. For instance, people are paid for the number of clicks on the video or music uploaded ...