According to ComScore.com, who is one of the top companies to measure the ‘digital world,’ in May 2007 nearly 75 percent of the internet users in the United States of America spent an average of 158 minutes during the month viewing streaming video with Google Video being ranked at the top. The study states that there were over 8.3 billion video streams online. This, however, are stats based only from video content sites and doesn’t take in account for video server networks. This is just a sample of the whole world population in the developed and developing worlds.
It seems that today’s illegal activities surrounding streaming video and P2P networks are fueling the market for more advanced technological entertainment devices. Or is it the other way around? Can it be that because of the technological advances, we as consumers of entertainment content, or any information for that fact, are all becoming criminals? If we share information that is readily available on the web, even though it may be under a copyright law, is it truly a crime to click on the link that leads us to the data?
As one electronics reviewer stated while testing streaming digital media players that connect your PC to your TV or stereo, “Six of the seven players support HD video to some degree, but as yet there really isn't much true, legal HD video out there.” (Spector)
So what can one do when there is a market of technology pulling us to find illegal content on the web. Are we responsible if we never physically have the content stored on our hard drives, in our personal libraries burned to a DVD disk, but briefly in our cache memory for seconds at a time depending on the hosting site that the illegal content is uploaded to.
But of course, one cannot deny the rights to the owner or author of the content that is posted and streamed. Intellectual property is the oil of the internet. Not oil as in lubricant, but as the cash cow. In the article ‘The Man who could kill YouTube’ in Esquire Magazine, Belloni states that the “American entertainment and technology industries [have created] about $5trillion worth of the country’s largest export: intellectual property.” Be it that
As much as I enjoy watching what I choose to watch through streaming video, I understand the legalities of copyright infringement and intellectual property. I do not own a television, and I plan not to. At least not to watch what is offered to me here in
Belloni, Matthew (2007, July). The Man Who Could Kill
YouTube. Esquire, 148(1), 71. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document ID: 1305842001).
Lipsman, Andrew. “3 Out of 4
Average American Video Streamer Watched More than 2.5 Hours of Video Online. July 17, 2007. ComScore.com. 11 Jan. 2008
Spector, Lincoln;
World, 25(8), 92-96,98,102,104,106. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from Research Library Core database. (Document ID: 1308392221).
The article covers how if a PC is able to pick television broadcast signals, which is still streaming media be it through the air of through the internet, the owner of the PC and the owner of the website that offers live streaming video of football games in the UK, must pay a TV license fee.
The article explains that also during the World Cup airing through BBC in 2006, if anyone would watch the games from their office during game time, then any office that does not have a TV license would be fined.
This throws up the debate of 'is internet streaming the same as broadcasting?'
There is a cross-over of two different media and the former regulators of are thus trying to tax the internet streamers where as the content such as the World Cup matches was freely hosted by BBC. How can the tax that covers use of television infrastructure and programming ethically charge for the telecommunication infrastructure?
Down Load your TV
This is a link to another blog discussing the similar topic of Streaming Video and Trends in the Cross medium adaptations on viewers and TV providers.
Streaming media started with broadcasting radio and then television through the airways as a continuous feed of information but the viewer had no control of the time that one could view or listen to the broadcasted programs. The receiver was at the mercy of the broadcaster to be around a television or radio when their favorite program was aired.
With the invention of the magnetic tape and home devices such as audio tape recorders and video tape recorders (VCRs), consumers where then able to program and record their favorite material.
Over time, with the digital age, Tivo made it popular to be able to digitally record one's favorite television shows, leave out the commercials and save the material for when ever the had time to watch their shows.
The new trend, which has followed the explosion of streaming video over the last few years, is that many mainstream and corporate entities are adapting to the times and are offering their television shows in down-loadable and/or streaming video content.
ABC, Disney, and others many times have offered down-loadable version 24 hours after the original airing, often with a fee for some of the top rated shows. I remember episodes of 'Late night with Conan O’Brien' for sale on iTunes. but many networks are offering Streaming versions of their shows for free. the problem with this is that one must be directly connected to the internet while watching these shows. no saving for later viewing. These often come with commercials that are difficult to pass through if you do not wait for the content to buffer fully.
This is a great example of how the large media producers have to adapt to their viewing audiences through the changes of technology.
Above is a link to an article covering the most recent Raid and Arrest of the proprietor of a 'Pirate' website called www.tv-links.co.uk. This particular website, which was shutdown in October 2007, hosted links that linked to online streaming video that often was copyrighted material. Tvlinks.co.uk in fact did not host any copyrighted material itself, but only linked to other sites such as Youtube/Google Video, Dailymotion, and many other websites that allow uploading of videos.
What is special about this case is that instead of the authorities going after the sites that host the copyrighted material, they went after the fact that the site did "contribute to and profit from copyright infringement by identifying, posting, organising, and indexing links to infringing content found on the internet that users can then view on demand by visiting these illegal sites."
This arrest of a 26 year old man was the first of the
On the other hand, why have not the authorities gone after Gooogle for hosting the copyrighted material that is being infringed upon. Gooogle does have webmasters and editors or whatever the title is (let's call its Content Monkey) to screen and find copyrighted material that should have not been uploaded. But, the amount of material that is uploaded surely overwhelms the Content Monkeys, because I can find with just a blank search under the genre "MOVIE_FEATURE" that 7 out of the first 10 videos are copyrighted material and in full length...I didn't have to link from anywhere....Godspeed!
