Should TechCrunch be promoting pirated BBC content? AOL owned site posts Facebook documentary in it’s entirety
AOL owned blog TechCrunch cites posting the documentary in its entirety as 'great marketing' for the copyright holder
We received some tips today about this post on TechCrunch by Erick Schonfeld, who recently took the position of editor-in-chief at the popular tech blog. The post in question contains an embedded YouTube video which is the full episode of ‘Mark Zuckerberg: Inside Facebook‘ which aired on the BBC. The website, which is highly influential in the tech scene should surely know better than posting copyrighted content like this. This comes even despite the BBC launching it’s subscription based global iPlayer, specifically designed for international audiences to access BBC programming. Editor in Chief Erick Schonfeld appears fully aware that the content is copyrighted. He is quoted as saying ‘I suspect they will all be pulled soon, unless the BBC realizes what great marketing this is for its brand in the U.S.’. Here he is citing the justification for posting the copyrighted content as ‘great marketing’ for the BBC. Surely a trailer or clip of the documentary would count as ‘fair use’, and would also provide adequate promotion? That’s not the only issue though…
Some commenters on the post raised issue that whilst TechCrunch has no issue posting the BBC content, paid for by the British TV licence payer, it is actively discouraging its readers from using H1Siri as it is illegal and utilises copyrighted code. Created in China by developers who go by the name of CD-Team, the app allows you to use the Siri application and ecosystem to the fullest providing the device is jailbroken and is running the newest version of iOS 5. Commenters have called this out as hypocritical; and it does on the face it appear to be a case of double standards. One would assume that the AOL backed site would proactively protect the copyright of it’s own content, but it appears happy to completely disregard the content created by the BBC in the UK. Is there a case of double standards here? Would TechCrunch post content and disregard the copyright of content from US services like Hulu or Netflix?
Many who take issue with this are British licence payers; for those outside the UK who are unaware, the BBC is funded by those who pay the Television licence fee and also via British government grants. Others take an even broader view, with some suggesting that TechCrunch has resorted to ‘riding off the back of others material for cheap hits’. Linking to copyrighted material is illegal in the UK, even when the content is hosted on YouTube. Despite the 2010 prosecution of the TV-Links website in the UK (a directory that sourced programmes uploaded to other video websites, such as YouTube), the legal position remains unclear. Surely however, the AOL owned blog should not, out of principle promote such content?
UPDATE: I reached out to the AOL owned Huffington Post Media group for comment, and Erick Schonfeld personally responded to say that “…the BBC can ask YouTube to take down the video”, continuing to say that “It is hosted on Youtube. They can also ask us to take down the embed (which we would happily do).”. I’d ask – does this make it right? The BBC commented and said “…as is often the case with third-party video aggregation sites, this
programme was uploaded without permission. It has since been taken down using our standard procedures”.
What is your opinion of this content? Is it a non-issue? …or do you believe that BBC content, paid for by the UK licence fee payer should be freely distributed to those who don’t pay a licence fee – despite UK citizens having to pay the licence even if they are only streaming on their PC (without an actual television set)
10:46 pm 5th December, 2011
TechCrunch’s title is total link bait. It used to be “Watch The BBC’s Entire Hour-Long Facebook Special On YouTube” – The BBC issued a copyright claim, the original video was taken down and the Editor-in-Chief at TechCrunch then edits the original post, finds a NEW copy of the copyrighted video and embeds it… not before he changes the title though to something juicy for link bait that makes it seem as though YouTube have removed an official version of the documentary.
Shockingly disgusting.
10:51 pm 5th December, 2011
Just an FYI. Anyone in the UK can watch programmes on the iPlayer even if they don’t have a TV Licence. http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence
However you do require one if you want to live stream any of the BBC channels from the iPlayer website.
I am not however defending what TechCrunch/AOL have done. I think it is abhorrent. How would they react if I set up a website and posted all of their content word for word then? After all, it would be great promotion for them wouldn’t it?
10:53 pm 5th December, 2011
Bear in mind we only need a license for streaming it *live* as it is shown on TV. Playing back later is OK without one. That said, almost everyone has a license anyway.
I’m a BBC license payer, though, and I don’t care about it from that point of view. I know the BBC will never reduce my licence if people pay to watch their already filmed documentary in the US. The marginal cost of distributing it is almost zero now and the probability of people flocking to the subscription iPlayer en masse to watch it is pretty close to zero too
8:15 am 5th December, 2011
The point is the BBC paid for the production of this content and needs to recoup the cost somehow. International distribution on YouTube is not in it’s business model and it’s irresponsible for a mass media broadcaster like AOL to interfere with that. Would it be right to embed its F1 coverage, for which it has paid a fortune for exclusivity and distribution rights? What TechCrunch is doing is the same, in principle and it’s indefensible.
4:08 pm 5th December, 2011
I don’t think that the BBC actually cares if you watch their tv shows on YouTube, as most of them aren’t aired abroad, sold on DVD, or even streamable online using iPlayer abroad from the UK.
Their public charter prohibits them from letting international users use BBC iPlayer, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t want you watching their shows on YouTube.
Just as long as you don’t sell them or have them downloadable.
1:24 am 5th December, 2011
I could well be wrong here, but I get the impression TechCrunch, and other news websites run a certain number of stories just to rake in ad money. It wouldn’t surprise me if the reason why there are so many ”iPhone 5 Rumour” posts is purely because they bring in the traffic, which then click the ads earning AOL or whoever money. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. Make up rumours as much as you like, if that’s the kind of business you want to run.
The BBC however, has paid for the production of that documentary. TechCrunch in my opinion are only posting the story so when people search Google their page comes up. People who click through will click the ads. Is it right then for TechCrunch to be profiting from content paid for by the UK taxpayer? I happen to think not.