Viral Weezer Video Not Allowed To Be Viral

from the not-so-brilliant dept

The band Weezer has been getting a lot of buzz for its latest video for the song Pork and Beans, which takes a bunch of viral video "YouTube stars" and has them reprising their roles in its own video. Others have done similar things, so perhaps it's not that unique. However, a Techdirt reader named Mike noticed something quite odd about the Weezer video on YouTube. For a supposedly "viral" video -- Weezer or Universal Music has disabled the ability to embed the video in other sites (see update below). Embedding these kinds of videos, of course, is exactly how they go viral. Specifically disabling that feature on a video that's entirely based on viral videos seems backwards.

It's difficult to believe that Weezer did this themselves -- as the band has long been seen as embracing the internet and new technologies and distribution means. Hell, just doing this type of video shows how connected to the internet scene they are. So it makes you wonder if it was the band's label, Universal Music, that has stopped the embedding. If they're going to do this, why not follow Viacom's footsteps and ask the video to be taken down completely.

Update: Aha! Within hours of us posting this, the embed feature was re-enabled. No explanation as to what happened. Someone from Weezer or Universal care to comment?

Filed Under: embedding, viral video, weezer
Companies: universal music, youtube

Viacom's New Argument Against YouTube: Embedding Videos Removes Safe Harbors

from the active-vs.-passive dept

While we already discussed Google's latest response to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, Cynthia Brumfeld has picked up on an interesting point that's been overlooked: Viacom's amended complaint includes a slightly different argument as to why Google/YouTube are not protected by the DMCA's safe harbors, effectively claiming that YouTube takes an active role in transmitting the content. This is somewhat similar to an earlier argument that some made that YouTube is disqualified from the safe harbors because it transforms video from its original format into flash, but stretches it even further.

Even worse, Viacom brings up the issue of embedding videos. Of course, YouTube's embedding feature that allows anyone to easily embed a video in any webpage was one of its big selling points. Last year, we had raised the question (that still hasn't been answered) whether or not it was copyright infringement to embed an infringing video into your own site (even though you don't host the content at all). Viacom seems to be claiming that by enabling this act of embedding is infringing. Why? Because it's YouTube serving up the video, rather than the original uploader.

That's a huge stretch by any imagination and hopefully the court will toss it out. Otherwise, it effectively nullifies the entire safe harbor provision of the DMCA. The point of the safe harbors are to protect the platform provider for the infringement of its users. If the court accepts Viacom's claim here, then it completely throws out that clear meaning of the safe harbor provision. It basically says that any service provider who "hosts" content that is accessed via another site is now guilty of copyright infringement, even if the company is never alerted that the content infringes. That goes against the clear meaning and purpose of the safe harbor provisions.

Filed Under: dmca, embedding, safe harbors, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube