I was one of the early management team members for one of the first online video websites, called Revver. The name tends to bring up pleasant memories for many early video creators, as Revver was the first site to actually pay artists, by attaching ads to videos as they were distributed through across the Interwebs, and then sharing the revenue with the video creators.
For a time, Revver was flying high. We had some notable success stories: The Diet Coke and Mentos Guys, LonelyGirl15, ZeFrank, Ask a Ninja, French Maid TV. But YouTube quickly overtook us, and then with their Google war chest, dominated us.
Why? Because Revver didn’t allow copyright infringement and YouTube, the company that broke through with a pirated “Lazy Sunday” clip, did.
We scanned every single video that was uploaded to Revver, using a combination of technology and human eyes. We built software tools to simplify the review process, and employed a team of people called “Video Patrol,” who worked 24/7. There were some benefits in this process: We were able to quickly tag and curate videos around content categories, and to straighten up the more egregious issues associated with fraudulent, opportunistic user tagging (“Britney Spears” attached to generic shots of wiggly women was a favorite). This, BTW, is generally considered to be the recommended SOP if SOPA is enacted. The obvious problem is that it’s not scaleable.
Revver was also very vocal about our defense of copyright, becoming a standard-bearer in an exploding market that had the feeling of the wild west, with the potential for a gusher of oil if you staked out the right territory. We were applauded by the studios. But we found it difficult to make deals with anyone of any size.
Why? Because Revver’s audience wasn’t big enough. We posted more than 5 million unique visitors per month, but YouTube, with its softer standards, was posting four times that many. Guess who got the deals?
But here’s the thing: YouTube recognized that they needed to clean up their act a bit to keep their potential partners happy. Revver realized that we were outgunned. So, we helped YouTube build out and test the advertising technology that eventually became the standard for their site. And they developed their “Partners Program” to revenue-share with legitimate artists, creating an ecosystem that is now poised to compete with more traditional entertainment development and distribution channels. (Don’t believe me? What’s Hulu up to these days?)
Granted, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act with its safe harbors helped goad YouTube into action, but it also provided a mechanism for dealing with copyright violations that didn’t require a wholesale blackout of the host site. DMCA wasn’t generally regarded as good legislation at the time, but after some clarification through legal action, it was effective enough to provide enough stability to allow the market to evolve on terms that have been reasonably acceptable for both Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
My point? Legislation may have been part of the motivation, but innovation generated the solution.
No one running a major online business today would argue that content creators shouldn’t be paid for their work. After all, Silicon Valley and Hollywood are now melded in ways no one thought possible (well, maybe Steve Jobs did) even five years ago. SOPA is clearly targeted to take down less-than-legitimate operations. But it also, unfortunately, doesn’t appear to leave much room for legitimate partners to rectify problems.
The current situation is not perfect. But it’s somewhat workable. And with the creativity inherent in the California valleys, both foggy and smoggy, it might be more effective to legislate softly and carry a big technology stick.
Or, to torture another metaphor: we’re now in a marriage in a community property state. Even if one side wins, at most they’ll only get half the spoils, so it might be better just to work things out without getting all the lawyers and judges involved.
Recent Comments