Google News suggests that there have been about 500 stories so far written in this news sources that they scan on the topic of Viacom’s 100,000 take-down notices to YouTube users. Most of the stories focus on the business dynamics of the matter, understandably: 1) why Viacom did this; 2) the possibility (or likelihood, or unlikelihood, depending upon whom you ask) of a license deal in the offing between the two entities; 3) the response from YouTube/Google to the take-downs; 4) the status of the enhanced tools for copyright owners who want to track their works that they believe to be illegally posted; and so forth.
A few possible Day 2 stories that have not been discussed extensively in the MSM coverage, and of greater interest to me:
– How many of the 100,000 notices were mis-fires, like the one to Jim Moore? A few hundred, a few thousand? (Is this person one of them?) And what is the impact of those mistakes? Is there any pushback against the copyright holder who made these mistakes? Any liability, say under DMCA Section 512(f)? (Top10Sources, with which I work, is seeking to aggregate these stories and links to the clips that are put back up so we can all judge for ourselves.)
– Does it matter under the law whether YouTube provides the enhanced copyright protection tools that are bandied about in many of these articles? Could they release them selectively, say to those who license with them and not to those who do not?
– Why isn’t Viacom doing what CBS has done, for instance (as a Forrester analyst is asking on Charlene Li’s blog)?
– Who will build a service to compete with YouTube? Will the policy for handling copyright matter, one way or another, in terms of customer adoption of competing services?
– Is there a copyright reform strategy, and/or one or a series of business ideas (like Lisensa, e.g., with which I am involved) or extensions to NGOs like Creative Commons, that can help address the copyright crisis that continues to rage on the web?