Pepsi Change the Game Ad Campaign - Speech or Presentation Example

Pepsi Change the Game Ad Campaign To the Executive Management or the Board of Directors. Pepsi co. Dear Sir, It was important to bring into your notice the fact that the change the game ad campaign on YouTube may be a threat to future campaigns. This is due to the fact that the campaign seems too uploaded on the internet even though it is copyrighted. Although the change to the copyright law is extremely specific – it handles cases and issues regarding peer-to-peer file sharing. YouTube may not be included in it; however the fact that the ad campaign was copyrighted does question the ethics behind the act to upload it on the web net. If a person uploads a copyrighted video clip on YouTube then in fact the person who has uploaded has breeched the copyright law. This may be a threat to future ad campaigns because people may download or take a copy the change the game advertisement from YouTube, event though video is copyrighted, and they have breached the copyright law. They may use his capability to edit the video and thus affect the current fame of the campaign. Apart from this it may also become a trend to upload copy righted campaigns and edit them to damage the pace of the campaigns. In this manner small campaigns may especially be affected as they may not have the ability to track and legally act on such actions. Even though tit may be pointed out that the information found on a lot of online streaming sites is doubtful as being copyrighted or a breech of the copyright act however in the Act does to prohibit online ‘streaming’, as long the user is not using P2P. But this not limit the thereat to the advertisement campaigns as many users are quite smart enough to use online streaming services for their P2p purposes. In this manner they manipulate the law to fulfill their purpose (Correa etal 2009). One such case may be noted of Google, it decided to resolve the more apparent cause of copyright infringement apart from websites have committed through the most famous video streaming service YouTube, and its main objective was to take legal action against YouTube-MP3.org. Google seemed to point the finger in the right direction as it accused YouTube-MP3 using the application programming interface (API) which is available to YouTube users for purposes which breeched the copyright law and may even effect the original owner of the video as provides the user with a lot of different methods thorough YouTube to obtain the content and features in other websites, thus the downloaded content and may be obtainable to other users on a non-streaming basis. The reason behind highlighting this case is that even this campaign may fall victim to such tactics, it may not only affect Pepsi’s campaign but also affect other campaigns which fall under the same criteria. Many companies could use the content and features of the video for their own purposes. The company may alter on be bale to take legal notice on it, but the damage may already be done. As the rival company may already have launched their campaign and may have captured the share of the market through it. It may also be kept in mind that even though YouTube hides it’s illegal acts by assuring the law that they have utilized API features only for the purpose of obtaining the video title and length of a particular video, and both things are completely acceptable as per the services which YouTube is providing , here is the main issue tat their argument is weak as the streaming is carried out by means of exterior software, which they prefer to utilize as of a recording device to produce a copy of the video which was telecasted on the television. . It may be noted that YouTube can be exempted from responsibility for the measures and, particularly, copyright violation of its users, thus the above mentioned case is a important warning that there is still need to protect the IP rights of posters and copyright holders to a certain extent in areas which can be handled without any issues, for example highlighting the fact that YouTube are in infringement of terms of service. Such actions may help many people save their advertisement campaigns in future. However, if companies like Pepsi continue to allow their ad campaigns to be uploaded on YouTube they are not only taking a risk but also causing problems for other campaigns The law is at present unsettled regarding websites which consist of links to infringing material; nevertheless, there have been a number of lower-court decisions which have gone against linking in some intently prearranged circumstances. If Pepsi’s advertisement campaign has been uploaded according the to circumstances which the courts have ruled against then , Pepsi may have chance to save the future of the campaign as well as help other advertisement campaigns to gain their pace. One method by which YouTube’s uploading of Pepsi’s advertisement may pose a threat is if the owner of a website has previously been given a ruling in opposition to upload copy righted material on their website as well as the links to the similar material in an effort to outwit the ruling. Another may include linking to software or devices especially meant for outwit DRM (digital rights management) devices, as the main objective is to go around copyright protection by means of linking to copyrighted material. Either method may cause the other advertisement campaigns to copy Pepsi’s game challenge advertisement by fining ways to out wit the regulations regarding the situation No cases have been ruled or found in which a website owner was held responsible for linking to copyrighted material outside apart from the before mentioned situations. Service providers may not be responsible for the breach using their services if they have not acquired the "actual knowledge" or an understanding of the prohibited action. In situation where they acquire information regarding the before mentioned act the service provider "acts expeditiously to eliminate or to restrict kind of access to the information, in such cases they are not legally responsible for that violation (Lacy, 2008). However it may also be noted that the advertisement uploaded on YouTube may not cause any threat to the campaign or future campaigns as YouTube's Content ID technology has the ability to identify information which the publishers own rights to. In the case the publishers give YouTube copies of the video they require to be uploaded on YouTube to reference on the video-sharing site as well as the tools evaluates uploaded files with the information given by rights holders. If the information and uploaded file match then the is rights holders may restrict can further use of the content, trace its utilization via by leaving it up or opt for share of the ad revenues produced due to the video's use. This is something which Pepsi may have kept in mind before letting YouTube upload their campaign. However, if the campaign was uploaded it still by is able to be violated and thus affect the pace of the campaign. However it may be highlighted that the campaign may be in danger as the European Court of Justice gave verdict that national courts do not have the right to force internet service providers to utilize filter systems which are installed at internet service provider’s own expenditure and utilized for an indefinite period – to screen all its customers' electronic communications to avert prohibited file-sharing (Clough, 2010). The courts highlighted the fact that such an order may violate internet service provider’s rights to without restraint carry out business and individuals' rights to privacy, free speech along with the security of their personal information. An example where one may see that the uploaded video can be edited is that a lot of teachers frequently use YouTube video clips for instructing their lessons, particularly by downloading and converting YouTube videos for their offline utilization: this come under headed saving and converting streaming media for use offline. This method also may let them edit the content thus, one must be careful while upload a video which can be alter on streamed offline. There may be special concessions regarding the use of video clips for educational purposes but don't assume that such concessions are automatic. Ever since its start YouTube has turned into an extremely priceless source for advertiser, however it has repeatedly become involved in copyright cases. Countless YouTube clips breach copyright, however a lot of copyright owners, bands, actor and film makers have no concern about their clips breaching copyright. For them it is good publicity, and still the erratic, rough YouTube clips are an unfortunate replacement for the original premium videos that are available commercially (Joe 2011). The publicity element of the argument is what may get Pepsi game campaign and other such campaign in trouble in the near future as for the sake of a little cheap publicity they may be risking the authenticity and innovativeness of their campaigns. YouTube places the responsibility on the individuals who upload video clips to the YouTube site to respect copyright and deletes all clips as soon as they turn out to an infringement of copyright - which generally makes the copyright owner think that the website has done something in their favor. However, the catch is that at times the video reappears on another account so it becomes almost imposable to control the copyright infringement in such cases. May people may also place downloaded YouTube clips on their own website, blog, wiki or VLE but this is the violation of the copyright law and such people face legal cases, but it is to be noted that the damage is already done by the time a case is filed. However linking to a video's URL at the YouTube site or inserting the link code may be quite acceptable and legal (Edwards 2005). Similarly, be wary of downloading video clips from the Dailymotion site and uploading them to your own website, blog, wiki or VLE. You should always check the Terms of Use that a website imposes: see above, Section 4. These may usually be found at the foot of the website's home YouTube, has become a famous website for sharing video content, every day, the viewing public searches for their desired content on YouTube, and thus they have more people watching their content then TV and cable combined. Whereas the number of people who watch YouTube’s as well as its display of video content there exclusive marketing opportunities, the illegal utilization of copyrighted content via its users has become out of control. Users regularly upload copyrighted advertisements , music videos, episodes to television shows , and movies without approval or copy right . They also utilize copyrighted content without consent in their own videos in many inventive methods they may use children dancing to a Michael song so just imagine how easy it may be to use parts of the advertisement campaign of Pepsi for one’s own video (Kelsey 2010) . So what can Pepsi and other companies do to protect the content of their advertisement campaigns which have been uploaded on YouTube ? First, it is essential to comprehend the legal responsibilities that have been imposed on YouTube, which may well help companies to prevent infringement of content of their advertisement campaigns. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) state that the service provider has to remove content that breeches the copy right act, as soon as the copyright owner notifies them to do so , in order to evade legal responsibility for copyright violation. The DMCA imposes that websites like you tube must expire the rights of users who constantly upload infringing content on the website . 'Privacy is going to be a huge challenge for many brands. Protecting consumers' privacy needs to be a philosophy companies live by, not simply a set of rules to adhere to.' (Clark 2011) It may also be noted that , YouTube provides many Videos and Audio ID program that permit rights owners to do the following: (1) spot user-uploaded videos in which their content may be used ; and (2) select what they desire to take place when those videos are spotted. Choices as well as setting a price for their content ; obtaining statistics on them, or getting them blocked or removed from YouTube these options which Pepsi should keep in mind. But apart from all this Pepsi cannot avoid using YouTube for its marketing due to the fact that online social media networks are increasingly being recognized as an important source of information influencing the adoption and use of products and services. These online networks and services are a subset of the so called Web 2.0 world. The popularity of the term Web 2.0 is largely credited to Tim O’Reilly who described it as a new form of collaborative Web, a “platform harnessing collective intelligence” (O’Reilly, 2005). Hoegg, Martignoni, Meckel, and Stanoevsla-Slabeva (2006) define Web2.0 as “the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation” (p.12) Pepsi may have to keep in mind two options one may be if they notify YouTube regarding a violation of the advertisement campaign and their complains is not looked into then and no steps are taken to remove the violated copyrighted content , it could be accountable for violation. But if tools are used find out which content has been used itself is a violation . So the only fair way is to keep an eye on the content and give preference to the first option So to conclude sir, It maybe pointed out that , Currently YouTube seems to be the most popular website for online marketing , it will be vital for companies to carry on balancing the requirement to guard their content from violation against the necessitate to offer customers with reproved material to utilize in their communications regarding their company and its products, this important because due to this the company maintains a little control over the content and may pose a little threat to the advertisement campaigns in the near future . References Correa, Carlos Maria; Li, Xuan (2009). Intellectual property enforcement: international perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 208. ISBN 978-1-84844-663-2. Clark Nicola (2011); A digital future: The new Pepsi challenge. Retrived from marketingmagazine.co.uk, Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. pp. 22 Edwards, Lilian; Waelde, Charlotte (2005). "Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement" (pdf). Keynote paper at WIPO Workshop on Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright, Geneva. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). p. 5. Hoegg, Roman, Martignoni, Robert, Meckel, Miriam and Stanoevska-Slabeva, Katarina (2006), “Overview of Business Models for Web 2.0 Communities”, in: Proceedings of GeNeMe 2006 Conference, Dresden, Germany, 2006; retrieved from http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/31411. Joe Karaganis, ed. (2011). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies. Social Science Research Council. Kelsey, Todd (2010). Social Networking Spaces: From Facebook to Twitter and Everything In Between. Springer-Verlag. Lacy, Sarah (2008). The Stories of Facebook, YouTube and MySpace: The People, the Hype and the Deals Behind the Giants of Web 2.0. Richmond: Crimson. O’Reilly, T (2005)., What is Web 2.0?, TTI/Vanguard., retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. Read More