November 08, 2006

The copyright naughty step

Oh blast, blip.TV have sent me an email saying “Dear Mr. Chimps, your playlist has been deleted because it contains material that violates copyright, you thieving shyster.”
Something like that, anyway.
That’s a wretched inconvenience because blip provides much higher quality playback than YouTube and I’d stuck a dozen or so ads on there (some of them virals).
The question is, should TV/viral video ads be treated the same way as TV clips and copied music? Arguably, the latter examples are a commodity and have an inherent value.
On the other hand, ads that are being watched (even outside a media planner’s control) are still doing the advertisers’ and the agencies’ work for them. Am I undermining either party?
And if you’re going to stop video embedding, shouldn’t the same rules apply to all adverts (especially scanned press ads) that are reproduced in blogs?

Tags: Evil; TV ads

2 comments:

Make the logo bigger said...

Sorry to burst the Napster bubble, but I think all copyrighted material should be treated the same no matter how it’s distributed and regardless of where it’s played.

Ads operate in a different way. Any money paid is from brand to agency, vs. the artist to consumer relationship where consumers pay for content (DVD, downloaded song, etc.).

The way I see money changing the relationship is that consumers might start paying to NOT have ads run in their content.

Other than that, put technology in place to charge people for every clip they view on the internet.

FishNChimps said...

hear hear