YouTube and Ethical Issues - Essay Example

YouTube and Ethical Issues Introduction YouTube is a website that has revolutionised, video uploading and viewing on the web. Created by web entrepreneurs Chad Hurly and Steve Chen in 2005, and designed to be run by users, it has been variously described as useful (Beschizza) to nothing but a website based on piracy and theft (Mahadeo, 2006) by critics. In 2007, Google bought this hot Internet property from its founders for a $1.65 billion. Holding sway over 29% of market share, YouTube is the undisputed leader in the US multimedia entertainment market. (Mahadeo, 2007). Viewer statistics of the YouTube are mind boggling. “YouTube hosts over six million videos, growing at about 20 percent every month. The total time spent watching YouTube videos since it started last year is 9,305 years!” (Tiago, 2006.) Use or Misuse However, it is its reported indiscriminate use (or misuse) that has made it a point of raging politico-legal-ethical controversy. The controversies and lawsuits that surround YouTube, not only puts the big Google investment at stake, but also lays a question mark on media ethics nurtured over past two centuries. Besides, it bares to piracy, tons of intellectual wealth of companies and individuals. The content control policy of Youtube is simple though at times ineffective. “The users can flag the content that they feel is inappropriate and once it is flagged, YouTube reviews the material and removes the video if it violates our terms” (Nielsen quoted by Canan). The video content on the YouTube is regulated by the US copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998, and it doesn’t allow uploading of pornographic content. However, it is the increasing use of website by political and human rights activists groups, whistle-blowers, animal rights activists, intellectual pirates, and even mischief mongers, that has brought YouTube under spotlight and its use and content are increasingly being studied from the ethical point of view. Does YouTube contravene media ethics? Is it within the right of anybody, to upload a video concerning any issue, of public or private interest, or secrecy on the Internet? Is it ethical to upload any content that rips open privacy of an individual or shows blatant human or animal rights violations for sheer fun purposes or earning money? Even if it is done with good intention, the viewers shouldn’t be allowed to take delight from the barbarous nature of the content. YouTube faces many cases in the US Federal courts and elsewhere, and a clamour has been raised against its use, also by members of the media, religious groups, art and cultural groups, intellectual property owners. YouTube has often been questioned over copyright infringements though such accusations have been more against its users than the owners (Mahadeo, 2006). Courting controversies and facing lawsuits has come naturally to YouTube ever since its inception. But overcoming legal cases, and to be ethically correct, could mean two different things, especially when issues are serious and relate to violation of human rights, trespassing of privacy, and transgression of morality is concerned. A Few Cases for Introspection The Lockheed Martin Case, Saddam execution, and a video showing violence on autism affected students are some of the most controversial videos that have sparked the media ethics debate. Michel DeKort, an engineer with a reputed company Lockheed Martin, used the YouTube after failing to evoke the authorities towards glaring loopholes in the US Coast Guard equipment. After having failed to get a response from authorities, elected representatives and the conventional media, the whistle blower used the YouTube to broadcast what he considered a grave risk to the US security. “The 10-minute video changed everything, albeit slowly. As it went online in August 2006, a trickle of newspaper and television reports followed mostly focused on the novelty of a whistleblower using the Website.” (Hechler, 2007). But the issue soon snowballed into a controversy with serious political ramifications as it concerned US security. Dekort was an engineer in the US Coast Guard supplier on a $ 24 billion project Deepwater. As a result Lockheed Martin, the largest Defense Department supplier was removed from the multi-billion up gradation and modernization project of US Coast Guards and Dekort lost his job. Incidentally, Lockheed Martin happens to be pioneer of corporate ethics in US. Its innovative ethics program was led by Daniel Terris, the author of the book Ethics at Work: Creating Virtue at an American Corporation and ironically the Corporation has become a victim of corruption and mismanagement, and still more, a centre of debate on ethical use of YouTube. The Italian video showing an autistic student being bullied in Turin, Italy, webcast on YouTube sparked yet another row in media ethics. The video showing outrageous content far from waking up the sensibilities of a civilisation that gloats over its highly just systems, to swift action, only added fuel of fire of raging YouTube controversy. Rather than finding and stemming the cause of inclination for violence towards the vulnerable, the state prosecution chose to question the media ethics of Google in airing such a video. “In the US, sites like Google Video, SoapBox, and YouTube are generally protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants "safe harbor" to the sites so long as they are not the "publishers" of any illegal material and take it down immediately when requested.” (Andersen). Defending Google, Andersen feels that the society needs to be shocked out of complacency and such clips can act as catalysts of social change. The case of Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers presents another interesting dimension into the ethics of YouTube usage. The Society on behalf of the 23 Japanese stations and entertainment companies asked YouTube to take off their video clips as it was an infringement of copyrights. Adhering to its policy of YouTube of deleting uploading files on complaints of copyrights infringement and it deleted 30000 files after complaint by the Japanese group. The Group asked YouTube to place filters and take measures on to prevent infringing videos. YouTube has promised to take action by blocking the accounts of those violating the guidelines, though not to the satisfaction of the Japanese Group. At the International level, there have been attempted blocking of YouTube many a time. Accessibility to Youtube was stopped in Iran by the government, to ostensibly “protect citizens from the corruption of foreign films and music, and the ban is still in place” (Cheng). In another case of airing of explicit content through a video clip, a Brazilian judge ordered the banning of YouTube from Brazil, after it failed to comply with the court’s order of taking off the controversial video clip. The clip featured the complainant couple in an intimate scene. The Australian province Victoria banned YouTube from 1600 of its public school. The reason was posting of a video that showed a gang assault on a 17-year-old girl. The question lingers; who is to blame for such a heinous crime, the perpetrators, the state, or the medium that is used to bring such shameful incidents to light. Certainly merely webcasting a video, or showing a crime being committed doesn’t tantamount to the broadcast medium being held guilty. It is the crime that is to be stemmed and not it’s reporting. In yet another case of posting of derogatory videos on YouTube led to escalation of tensions between Greece and Italy. The Istanbul First Criminal Peace Court decided to ban the site that lasted a few days (Cheng). A ban imposed by the Thai Government and a threat to sue Google was enough for removal 12 insulting video clips about the Thai King. Inaccessibility to YouTube for a few days was enough to make the people of Morocco to surmise that it could have been blocked by their government for carrying some anti-establishment propaganda material. Equally interesting, but differing in ‘content’ and ‘consequence’, is the case of NBC and YouTube. A rock clip from the Saturday Night Live containing a rap song became an instant hit. “NBC, however, decided that YouTube shouldnt be able to capitalize on its work and demanded that the video be taken down NBC ended up striking a deal with YouTube months later, using the service to upload promotional videos for Saturday Night Live and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” (Cheng). However, all may not ethically well with stories that end well. The ethical and legal issue of Youtube webcasting some other’s copyrighted material at the first place stay, as they were. “On the other hand, YouTube has licensing arrangements with some major entertainment companies like Warner Corporation, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Vivendi”(AP, Foxnews.com, 2006). All the lawsuits filed against YouTube are still going, and the outcomes of these suits could significantly change how sites like YouTube are run in the future (Cheng). In case, the suits go in favour of Google, the current trend of ‘illegal uploading’ and subsequent ‘deletion’ would continue with clamour of infringement being raised all too often. However, in case judgements go against Google and YouTube, that it would herald big reversal for the scrupulous as well as unscrupulous elements for those who seek shelter in protective provisions of DMCA. Japan is deliberating on making an innovative intellectual property law that could show the way for the rest of the countries. According to the new law (yet to be passed) copyrighted content could be redistributed as long as royalties are paid for the broadcasts. “Its an idea that has found favor with some prominent musicians and more importantly, it would allow content providers to get paid” (Cheng, 2007). The above mentioned cases have a common denominator in YouTube being used as a medium, legally or illegally, to webcast a video clip. The difference, however, lies in the intended motive, and the consequences of the webcast. The current provision of deleting an online content only after objections are raised, is not enough, for damage could have is done by the time Google wakes up to action. But who is to be entrusted with a preventive action at the first place? Even if Google is empowered to take preventive action, what should be the deciding parameters of making such a decision? A cause of a nation like in the Lockheed Martin case; conscience call to humanity like in the case of autistic child; and of financial promotion of NBC could have been beaten, if a decision was made to not air the clip at the first place. The answer may well lie in how the interpreters of law (the courts) and the lawmakers (elected representatives) chose to see the problem in future. The third angle remains of information dissemination. “Within a few years, the Web has become the favored source of information retrieval. When we want to find more information about a topic, whether it be torture or tsunamis, we turn first-and often only-to the Web.” (Hinman, 2005). Being tough on YouTube could also mean infringement on right to information of the global citizen. Conclusion The future will truly present a scenario of freedom of expression around the world. Internet is a medium of future and websites like “Youtube” are its important windows to the world . Any attempt at their regulation may end up in strangling of the freedom of press. With the voices of reason both for and against Youtube, the onus of responsibility to make available a particular video clip for viewing certainly veers down to its management and to some extent its community. Two questions of ethics may come in handy for YouTube managers while making a decision for or against airing a video. A Who are the stakeholders -- those affected by my decision? What are their motivations? Which are legitimate? B. What are the possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term? (Steele, 2000) It remains to be seen how fast a satisfactory surveillance develops and to what extent it is put to effective use to discriminate between ethical and unethical content. Question of ethics is a subjective issue and its answer may vary in different cultural contexts and countries with different times. Already a movement in change of ethical codes for media has begun. “These codes will be quite unlike existing codes, which were constructed for the journalism of a previous age.” (Ward, 2006). YouTube should steer clear of an uploading that involves copyright infringement. However, deciding on consequences of using video clip can be helpful in keeping a video off or on the YouTube. References. Hechler, David, 2007, Lockheed employees youtube video sounds ethics alarm, Law.com website, [Accessed Jan 5th 2008] http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1198058693078 Canan, Petra, 2007, Released footage of execution raises YouTube ethics questions, Lowdown lansing’s entertainment website, [Accessed Jan 5th 2008] http://www.lansinglowdown.com/index.php/article/488 Tiago, 2006, Gadetizer.com, [Accessed Jan 5th 2008], http://www.gadgetizer.com/2006/08/31/youtube-statistics-phenomenal/ Mahadeo, Ray (2007), Youtube ethics and copyrights, The Executive [Online] Available at http://www.mesa.ca/newsletter/the_executive_nov06.pdf [Accessed Jan5th2008] Beschizza, Rob (2007), Creationist vs. atheist youtube war marks new breed of copyright claim, Wired.com Website [Accessed Jan5th 2008] http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2007/09/youtube_dmca Anderson, Nate, (2006), Do Google and YouTube have ethical responsibility for their video services? Ars Technica Website [Accessed Jan5th 2008] http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8289.html Hinman, Lawrence M, (2005), Ethical and political issues in search engines, Ethics Updates Website [Accessed Jan 5th, 2008] http://ethics.sandiego.edu/lmh/op-ed/google/googleethics.asp Cheng, Jacqui, (2007), SueTube: sex, copyright, and rock & roll, Ars Technica Website [Accessed Jan5th 2008] http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/suetube-sex-copyright-and-rock-and-roll.ars/2 Ward, Stephen, (2006), New ethics for global media, The University of British Columbia website, [Accessed Jan 5th 2008] http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2005/mr-05-149/media.html Steele, Bob (2000), Ask these 10 questions to make good ethical decisions, Poynteronline Website, [Accessed Jan5th, 2008] http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=36&aid=4346 Read More