Hi5 Catches Flak from EMI

It should be unstated by now that websites and media groups will never be free of torment from record labels and music protection groups.  In fact, I hardly give a moment's notice to "news" about some website or college student coming under prosecution from the RIAA or one of its many cronies. 

I am, however, keenly interested when a social network or media site comes under fire for user-created content.   Today I read that popular social network Hi5 is being sued by large music group EMI for alledgedly allowing users to upload video content with embedded copyrighted music.  I'm all ears.

Hi5, though not hugely popular in the U.S, does have a large user base abroad.  Hi5, like many social networking sites, somewhat recently opened its platform so developers could create user applications.  One such application from VideoEgg allows users to upload their own video creations, which includes videos with music clips playing as background tracks.   That isn't anything particularly new, but it certainly makes for some fun internet time-wasting.

Though I can't say whether EMI is a lover of home video creations or not, I'm fairly sure that EMI has a legitimate complaint when it argues that both VideoEgg and Hi5 are profiting in allowing users to upload copyrighted content to the social networking site.  VideoEgg runs advertisements for its service, and quality applications will always draw new users to a platform like Hi5.  If users haven't paid for both owernship and distribution rights, the content is, by all rights, stolen.

That is exactly why EMI is suing Hi5, VideoEgg and unnamed others for stealing audio content.  The problem, as I see it, is that there really is no way for users to completely pay for rights to upload copyrighted audio tracks by way of video to share with a social community.  

But what about Youtube?  That is just one platform that allows users to upload content as they choose.  Beyond actually shutting down all social video communities, how does EMI really expect consumers to monetize the rights to use music in video content?

It seems obvious to me that the old rules of copyright will have to change, and change quickly.  EMI, the RIAA and others will never stop crying about the "rights of the artists," artists who even believe that such media protection groups are a little off their rockers, not to mention acting with very little interest for the actual artists, and users will certainly not stop violating copyright laws to create their own content.  We are at a stalemate, and it would be sad to see the government side with a few money-grubbing companies instead of promoting the advancement of the internet and social venues.

After all, what do music protection groups really contribute?  Certainly not as much as social communites have given.  Some artists have completely dropped the idea of signing with big record labels, because those companies are only focused on squeezing the life source out of artists and then dropping them on the curb.  That can't be something the government is willing to defend.

But who knows?  I don't.  For the time being, social communities and websites will have to step carefully to avoid the murky waters of  copyright infringement, waters that the music business sharks patrol hungrily.  To those of you who might dabble in audio overlays of your video content, think twice before uploading, lest you receive an unwelcome visit from some kook with an RIAA or EMI nametag.