I was just chatting to someone about this, the fact that TechCrunch made available a tool to let people download YouTube videos (definitely NOT rocketscience). They got a C&D letter from YouTube counsel as ironic as that sounds. I guess what I don’t understand is why they were offering this tool up themselves anyway… why get involved? I guess I’m puzzled why TechCrunch would create something like this and put it on their site, seems far away from what they do and I think the above post is a bit disingenuous — spending a lot of time digging through the YouTube terms of service, building this tool (however simple it supposedly is) and posting about it on your site seems designed to court controversy. If there’s not enough news out there about YouTube and copyright stuff, I guess you can make your own?

Not in a video on YouTube, but talking about the coming decline of YouTube, as he puts it. Mark was obviously the original guy who turned online streaming/video into real money (by way of some inflated Yahoo! stock) but regardless he makes some good points.

Niki Scevak’s take on this study (whitepaper? toilet paper?) is classic.

A favorite saying of one of my college CS professors from back in the day, Tom Cormen, (co-author of arguably the leading textbook on algorithms): “Your mileage may vary”, meaning that things don’t always work as advertised, we’re affected by situations differently etc. Anyway, for whatever reason this came to mind as I read what Lessig had to say comparing MP3.com’s punishment to FERC California energy manipulation. For that very short time, I thought MP3.com’s service was super cool, and was very consumer friendly. It worked so well and made so much sense that I was genuinely surprised that it existed. Correctly as it turned out. (check this out for more)

My former colleague Gary Stein’s blog talks about this story on Reuters about the search engine trademark issue. Much more on this to come - in my position I get to see some interesting takes on these types of disputes and helping clients think through this stuff. I also spoke at the SES show in San Jose this week, and it makes you realize just how early we are in the development of the search engine/navigation marketplace not only from a consumer behavior perspective but also legally speaking… perhaps we have not the legal tools suited to understand this yet.

Ok, so tools with which the average consumer can copy and share digital media are readily accessable and pose an increasingly threat to intellectual property owners. Needless to say there are major challenges that must be met before this problem is adequately diminished, but perhaps we are employing a heavy hand in attempting to curb what is effectively the natural behavior promoted by the available computing and consumer electronics platforms.

I’m not so sure that the media industry is operating with enlightened self-interest in mind as it attempts to beat down the problem with various legislative sticks (see RIAA versus “everyone imaginable”).

Some technology building blocks to stem the problem are now taking shape, its just a matter of inducing consumers to cooperate. People have always proven willing to pay for new ways to consume media — whether its better fidelity or more flexibility. So, give it to them…at a reasonable price….and you might well be surprised.

I applaud you Movielink, but really….$4.50 for questionable fidelity and a download time in line with a trip to the video store?