Big Business Should Give More Than An Inch

Viacom has recently stated that they will remove their content from YouTube (Viacom is a huge conglomerate that owns Comedy Central, MTV, and BET among other popular networks) citing copyright infringement. This move has reaffirmed what has already been proven so many times in the past— big businesses are seemingly unwilling to embrace new technology for fear that they will lose money, while in fact the opposite is actually true.

Look at the movie industry— in the 50s when television came out, the movie-makers were terrified. The VHS and home video was even more frightening. And then came DVDs and merchandising. The original movie studios failed to realize that their product wasn’t a particular format (the theater movie), but that their product was actually an entire form of entertainment and all that goes along with it (which is turn means big bucks and booming industry). The music industry has a similar past. The industry had an evolution from radio to records to 8-track to cassette to mini-disc to CD and now to MP3, and at every step the big businesses are fighting to stay with traditional methods. They don’t understand that by working with (not against) their consumers they will be able to maximize their profits. The new technology will eventually take over, whether or not they like it or not, so why the censorship?

Say Viacom takes their content off YouTube and creates an alternative version of video streaming on their website—will it be up to the par that consumers want? Part of what is so great about these sites is the accessibility to such a wide library of content—lyrics from an old musical, karaoke versions of your favorite songs, clips from anything behind and in front of the scenes—nearly anything is available. When YouTube and MySpace has censorship it looses all its charm.

Looking back to the music industry, this entire situation reminds me of Napster in the 90s. The censorship of Napster created a new, boring Napster that no one wanted. The new Napster (legal, but nowhere near the access to obscure clips and only allows streaming, not downloads) was available at USC for only $15 a semester to stream music, and less than 500 students signed up. (usc.edu) I assume students were still downloading music at the same rate as before-- do you think they were turning to other illegal methods? Gasp!

Atleast steps in the right direction are being made. Now online video streaming by networks (controlled and legal) is becoming a growing method of ways consumers watch video. Nbc.com streams full episodes of television shows online, and since October of last year it has already delivered 42 million full episodes. (insidemusicmedia.com) But by looking at NBC.com, you definitely can’t get the same access that YouTube offers, as only the newest episodes are available for streaming and only from limited shows. Sound anything like the Napster censorship to you? When illegal options are available and legal options aren’t as good as the illegal ones, consumers will simply turn to the prohibited alternative. Case in point: the millions of illegal music downloads that still occur each day.

For this system to really work, Viacom and other big networks need to learn from their past and embrace the future. They should strike a deal with YouTube instead of cutting their ties. Traditional approaches to the music and video industry will be replaced by digital and online methods, and if they give a little now, ultimately the profits will be greater in the future.