Media « Interestinthings

3May/100

YouTube’s “fair use button” as compulsory license

YouTube posted on their blog recently highlighting the not-actually-new "fair use button" in their Content ID system. The relevant description seems pretty straightforward:

When you receive a notice in your account via Content ID, we tell you who claimed the content, and direct you to a form that lets you dispute the claim if you so choose.

If you believe your video is fair use, check the box that reads "This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder." If you're not sure if your video qualifies, you can learn more about fair use here.

Once you've filed your dispute, your video immediately goes back up on YouTube.

From this point, the claimant then makes a decision about whether to file a formal DMCA notification, and remove the content from the site according to the process set forth in the DMCA.

They're casting Content ID here as a sort of pre-DMCA process, but it's more than that. Notably, it can involve revenue shares for the content owner from the ads shown against the content. This led me to the question of whether or not such rev shares continue along if the user claims fair use, and more abstractly, if they should. I guessed they would, since fair use is only a defense to infringement, which just means that the copyright owner can't stop the use; it says nothing about the copyright owner not making money off of the use. (I've since learned from a knowledgeable person at this month's CopyNight that currently, the whole Content ID claim gets disputed, i.e. all the content owner's options are suspended. Maybe this is a technical choice, maybe it's a policy choice, but I'd be really curious to hear why either way.)

Traditionally fair use and non-payment have gone hand in hand, because those not interested in getting the owner's permission weren't generally interested in giving them any money either, and fair use nullified the owner's leverage, i.e. the power to stop the use. The relationship imposed by YouTube's system here seems more like a compulsory license, where the owner can't stop the use, but they are still entitled to a fee for it. While compulsory licenses are also access-enhancing, they're not the same thing as fair use; interestingly, in some cases they seem more fair. There is usually some acknowledged value from the original copyright owner's contribution to the use, and our societal interest in seeing the use brought forth isn't directly tied to appropriating that value for the fair user, so a process for giving some share of the revenue back to the original owner has some simple justice to it.

In this case, it's YouTube as an intermediary distributor who is in good position to monetize the use, so they're the ones who can enforce such a distribution, i.e. make it a compulsory part of their service. Now, it's important to worry about those fair uses that aim at criticism where the prospect of generating revenues for the original copyright owner might decrease the incentives to make the fair use available, but I would guess those are the minority of the videos we're concerned with here, so I think the revenue share could still be an appropriate default, with an opt-out for those uses where it subverts the point of the use.

What's really interesting about this possible approach is the middle ground it carves out between a full fair use claim, which keeps the original copyright owner out of the equation completely, and a takedown notice, where the copyright owner just stops the use. Right now industry executives and lawyers talk about a space of "tolerated" uses, where they likely could get the use stopped but they decide on balance, at least for now, it's better if the use continues. I think there's potential to grow that space and give it more predictability by enabling some rights for the original copyright owners in potential fair use situations. It's really a very similar idea to Creative Commons, in that it's also talking about a "some rights reserved" position on the spectrum of rights. The difference is that here we're talking about YouTube making choices to structure its own ecosystem, rather than simply offering a licensing option for copyright owners to choose themselves. I think there's serious potential to increase the amount of new uses that can be allowed on sites like YouTube with semi-automated, regularized processes like Content ID if a claim of fair use stalls the owner's blocking power separately from other effects like attribution and revenue shares. It would certainly change the frame of the debate around remixed works "stealing" from the original works they use.

Share/Bookmark

Filed under: Law, Media No Comments

27Jan/100

The iPad and the digital surplus

“Where’s the opportunity? It’s creating book experiences. It’s taking a cookbook and adding video and author updates. That’s an opportunity, because you can charge extra for that."
-Gartner analyst talking about the iPad before the announcement

This is certainly true for some consumers, but I don't think it's the opportunity that will make the device a success. Sure, some people want to be upsold into a magical zoomy multimedia experience (because that worked so well in the CD-ROM era...), but there's also a (surely larger) group that just wants the same old books for less. Specifically, they'd like to capture the surplus that comes from not having to actually make, print, and ship paper for themselves, thanks very much. After all, I need get my five-to-eight hundred dollars to buy this fun device from somewhere, don't I?

There are plenty of people who will pay a premium just for the convenience of this device, but you can sell so many more if you can make a credible case for saving money. Amazon understands this, obviously; they've been taking a loss on many of their Kindle books in order to present a better value proposition. Apple also understood this when they launched the iTunes Music Store. It had single tracks available and brought the album price down to $9.99 almost across the board.

Personally, the reason I don't buy more books is because they feel too expensive. There's an awful lot of interesting things I can read on the web, most of which doesn't cost me a dime (though most of which I would happily pay a dime for). Fiction is largely absent from that supply, and so I do buy some books there, but even then there's enough other stuff to read that I can certainly wait for the paperback at least. But as the prices of decent, usable digital editions fall, I'm absolutely more likely to pull the trigger on purchasing a book I think might be good.

The problem is that the publishing industry seems to have convinced themselves that we want better books rather than cheaper books, but it's a serious mistake to presume that books are just an old medium, held back from ultimate glory by the restrictions of their form and the practicalities of their production. If all books were destined to be gussied up when they became digital, then we would already have seen a lot more illustrations in today's books than we do; we've had the capability for that for a long time. I think the focus provided by bare long-form text is a valuable feature of books, and a reason why they've so stubbornly resisted format changes over the years. Sure, there are some specialty forms of books that could really take advantage of multimedia and connectivity, e.g. textbooks and travel guides, but I'm not convinced those things are best conceived of as books anymore. Even if they are, then fine, charge me more for an interactive, fancified, self-updating Frommer's. But don't tell me that it will save the current structure of the publishing industry, which is based primarily on selling books that are not travel guides.

I think the most interesting possibility here is the further disintermediation of publishers, because they will not be a necessary gatekeeper in the distribution chain. They will obviously still have a role in the promotion of bestsellers, much like music labels still do; the engine of mass marketing still requires human infrastructure. However, an independently released book will have a real shot at mass distribution, even down to the level of the individual author. We've already gotten some of this benefit from the first wave of e-commerce sites, but the prospect of end-to-end digital distribution and better recommendation algorithms makes this exciting all over again. Netflix has done it for independent films, and with drastically lower production costs, the long tail of books should have even more potential.