 "Photo:")
I am killing the Internet.
Believe me, I was surprised to find this out. I'm the guy who rolls his eyes at Digg, participates in Mozilla Firefox Download Day, enjoys the occasional LOLcat and may even get Rick Rolled on a nerd-infested message board about users' undying love of IG-88. In short, the Internet is the source of a great deal of my knowledge, hobbies and personal entertainment. I am invested in its continued success, not plotting its demise.
But according to Viacom, America's media conglomerate and corporate overlord, I am a thief, whether I know it or not, and my actions are directly responsible for the Internet's impending death. This month, a New York judge ordered Google to turn over a database of YouTube video logs to Viacom as evidence they could study for piracy violations in their $1 billion copyright suit.
I could be like most people and cry foul for forcing Google to give away terabytes of personal data under a court order. To be honest, I'm not afraid or angry - I'm more worried that this is going to affect my ability to continue doing what I did before.
The truth is, I steal from the Internet every day. Not just the music, movies or ebooks that millions of others take part in; I steal using something as simple as my surfing habits.
You see, I run an ad-blocker. While casual users have been using pop-up blockers since back when dial-up was the primary means of logging on, I use an application for my browser that enables me to block all advertisements from the Internet. Tragically, I'll never have a chance to compare my IQ with Sen. Barack Obama or President George W. Bush, and I'll never be a Web site's one-millionth visitor.
But I'm not alone. This extension has over 21 million downloads, a large base of data and devotees who spend their time earmarking Web site that circumvent the software.
It is this add-on, not my watching clips of "The Daily Show," that is causing the true catastrophe. I can visit Comedy Central's own web site, a legal alternative to YouTube that allows me to watch their shows streamed online without the advertisements that supposedly justify free content. This problem with profits that arises with ad-blocking software is a conundrum, which further confuses the case involving Google and Viacom.
While it's wrong to watch videos of Viacom's copyrighted work on YouTube, they are outraged just as easily by Google's storing of their information when the terms of service, which many people gloss over, specify exactly what they are doing with the data.
But then again, it's not that different than being able to use TiVo or, if you're feeling retro, a VCR. About 20 years ago, Universal City Studios sued Sony for Betamax, its home video tape recorder, saying it violated copyright laws. At the time, the Supreme Court Justices said that it was just as troublesome for users to accurately fast-forward commercials in order to avoid them as it was to sit through them again and again, and that it constituted "fair use." The difference with ad blockers is their ease of use. A few clicks and you're "stealing" away.
If I am violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by procuring clips of my favorite TV shows from sites like YouTube, which share zero revenue with media companies, how is this any different than me going onto the Comedy Central site and pulling the video off for free, without subjecting myself to the promo for the next episode of "Mind of Mencia?"
Practically speaking, it's not any different. The problem with the Viacom suit is that while they can claim that people are stealing their content, most of what's "killing" the Internet are workarounds like this one, created and perpetuated by its most active users, resulting from their sense of entitlement to anything and everything available.
The Viacom-Google suit will provide interesting insight in the future of the Internet, and will set the stage for old media companies' role into the Internet in the future. Viacom in particular seems bent on alienating its most active media users, while jealously guarding content it offers for free on its own site.
My use of an ad-blocker doesn't kill the Internet so much as it kills media conglomerate profits. But a business model in which the corporation offers televised content for free and exclusive content for a fee would certainly get more customer loyalty and audience goodwill.
In the meantime, I'll be watching. And no, there won't be ads involved.
-John P. Gamboa is a journalism senior and a staff columnist.
-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed - include your full name, major and year in school.
Be the first to comment on this article!