Even The King Is Suing YouTube!

Now YouTube Has Stepped on the King's Blue Suede Shoes Evidently! 

Just last month we posted an article about yet another lawsuit against YouTube and Google initiated by the English Premier Soccer League. YouTube's legal woes are no great secret but the import of this "class action" suit appears to be gaining momentum as France's Tennis Federation, a French soccer league and Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co. have either join or intend to join the suit. This class action suit combined with the Viacom suit represents more than just a YouTube video clip removal campaign and the Web could be even more negatively affected by the outcome.

A story by Kristen Nicole of Mashable highlighted this latest news via The Chicago Tribune and I instantly put on my "I told you so" hat when I noticed the story. The Premier League has also started a website to attract supporters and possible adjoining plaintiffs against YouTube. I can just see the faces of the Google execs when they were sent the URL to YouTubeClassAction.com, I get an image of some suit calling the attorneys and saying: "Can they do that?" The whole situation would be hilarious if it the resultant backlash did not have such heavy implications for Web 2.0.

Class Action Revisited

Kristen commented that all these people lining up against YouTube could not be a good thing for them. That may be the understatement of 2007 as far as user generated content and sharing on Web 2.0 is concerned. The Viacom suit has drawn most of the publicity because of the weight of the participants and the huge amount of damages sought, but the class action suit really carries with it a possibly more damaging cost both in dollars and in the impact it will have on subsequent sites that rely on "borderline" content. This suit can be joined by a virtually unlimited number of plaintiffs and the term "strength in numbers" has never been more appropriate. The suit seeks an injunction and "unspecified" damages from YouTube for massive and blatant copyright infringement.

The Extreme

I am no international lawyer but we have seen a number of video sites clean up their act in an obvious effort to avoid this type of thing. Veoh for one has taken on a new direction veering away from video content that pushes these limits and into the realm of Web TV deals and services ala Joost. If this suit is won, essentially every video clip mashed up by any site user can be forced off of the Web if it contains copyrighted material. No copyright holder would take the trouble to sue the individual who edited and submitted these videos but as we see here any number might go after the sites themselves either to seek damages or to protect their product.

Conclusion

YouTube's "Hog Wild" approach to video may have robbed us all of some of the most creative and entertaining content ever created. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy the things people create and share on these sites and would really miss their value. I know it is time for people on Web 2.0 to realize that just because we want something and can exert some power to get it does not mean it is either right or inevitable. The bottom line is that a win by the plaintiffs will make any site owner nervous about content in general. Web 2.0 is basically people and content (well and a few gadgets), limiting any element in this triangle is bad for business. One final note, Cherry Publishing handles Elvis' and Quincy Jones' music and no one messes with the king. All this suit needs is John Wayne and it is over in an American court.