What happens when a blogger comes up against the disapproval of an internet titan like Google? After watching this weeks BBC Click programme featuring a story on this, I dropped Spencer Kelly a line to discuss the issue.
Here is the email I’ve just sent to Spencer Kelly, the BBC Click presenter after watching their report on the copyright battle between Mark Kobayashi-Hillary and Google.
Dear Spencer,
I have just watched your 22 May BBC Click article about Mark Kobayashi-Hillary’s struggle with Google and the YouTube copyright issues he was presented with leading to the suspension and removal of his YouTube account. I understand Mark’s point regarding freedom of speech and the ability to present arguments on the web but to really understand why Google had a problem with his content I would need to see exactly what was written, featured or even implied in his articles as a blogger and YouTube clips as it is not in Google’s interest to create negative publicity like this. I am suspicious that there is much more to this than presented in your show such as some of the fine detail that we were not made aware of that would offend such an internet giant – we did only really hear a superficial argument on either side [probably for legal reasons] but the implications of what was said were very serious.
Mark’s argument in the programme was that the musicians themselves had encouraged him to feature their content on his YouTube account. This simply does not stand up against the fact that mainstream musicians, artists and performers are usually under the management, both legally and artistically, of bigger corporations who will not stand by and allow certain global and political issues sit comfortably beside footage of their performers in whatever context. I would think that as a visiting lecturer to Universities and many significant companies and institutions presenting his understanding of “globalisation, politics, and the technology issues” [probably attached to a significant hourly rate of pay], he would be aware of the exact implications of his actions and therefore it should come as no surprise as Google is a company like any other – it wants to make money and protect it’s interests like any other. Should someone use their “free” blogging or other tools to question the business methods or policies of some of Google’s partners [both current and potential future deals] or affiliations then it would be understandable that it would react with strong disapproval and potential removal of an account that breached standards in any way. From some limited experience, Google does usually give people reasonable opportunity to remove or adjust their accounts accordingly and so this makes me think that Mr Hillary may have overstepped the mark in other ways.
Of course, I do not know the fine details of Google’s disagreement with Mark but as I said, Google [or any other global company with a reputation to uphold] would not do this sort of thing lightly considering the extent of other ‘dubious’ copyright content on YouTube and the web in general.
Keep up the good work!
Leave Your Response