I’ve been meaning to share this since I saw it about a week ago. I didn’t watch much of the Olympics this year because we don’t have cable TV in the house, but what little I did see I watched at the gym while on the treadmill or elliptical machine. Those personal TV’s are a handy motivation if the Olympic Games or a violent UFC fight is on. People would be fitter if the televisions only played inspiring sports. You can tell when you walk into the exercise room which people are watching Soap Opera’s while they slowly glide to no progress at all.

Of the Olympic moments I saw this year, the above photo of Andreas Wank after he landed his final team ski jump was my favorite. It’s a winner’s pose to inspire us all. I really felt the burn that day. I found energy reserves I didn’t know existed. Thanks Andreas. (photo via Zimbio)

“[EMI] needs to recognize the basic mechanics of the Internet. Curbing the viral spread of videos isn’t benefiting the company’s bottom line, or the music it’s there to support.”

So why do large companies keep trying to work against the system? Sharing is what makes the Internet go round — one of the “basic mechanics” — but some companies missed that memo. The figures in Kulash’s article leave no room for suggestion: by restricting video sharing, companies are burning their profit, damning their artist’s popularity, and throwing away the best advertising tool on the market. Would they be happy to watch the smoke rise if they knew what started the fire?

Esquire also mentioned restricted videos last week, in a feature they ran on Roger Ebert.

“Ebert keeps scrolling down. Below his journal he had embedded video of his first show alone, the balcony seat empty across the aisle. It was a tribute, in three parts [to Gene Siskel]. He wants to watch them now, because he wants to remember, but at the bottom of the page there are only three big black squares. In the middle of the squares, white type reads: ‘Content deleted. This video is no longer available because it has been deleted.’ “

Disney deleted Ebert’s videos for “Terms-of-use” violations. Remembering Gene Siskel is back up on YouTube, posted the day before the Esquire article was published, but the anger Ebert felt when he saw those empty black squares was understandable and justified. No one benefits from restricting those videos. Not Disney, not Ebert, and not his fans.

Media businesses that  fail to learn the basic mechanics of the Internet will founder in today’s world, where the Internet is an essential medium. That’s the natural selection of capitalism. Instead of lashing out against video sharing, businesses would make more money if they learned how to turn sharing (and, therefore, an individual’s opinions and tastes) into profit.

There are alternatives. Nine Inch Nails, for example, has had unprecedented success with their Internet album releases.. In Kulash’s article, he talks about the success that came with the popularity of the music video created for Here It Goes Again. That is, before EMI caught on.

What could Disney have done better with the videos on Roger Ebert’s blog? Rather than restrict the videos, they could have charged royalties. Or, if Ebert doesn’t profit from his site directly, offer to make a trade. We’ll give you the rights to show those videos on your site if you link to an online store selling Siskel and Ebert products by Disney. Hardly an obtrusive request, but one that will yield results. “Twelve months, 92 million visits at rogerebert.com” is no small boast. Ebert gets the videos, Disney gets a plug, and the fans get Siskel and Ebert gear, perhaps even at a discount.

Nothing short of force can stop sharing on the Internet. Words of wisdom to the companies that keep trying? There are too many doors to block them all, and too many resourceful people willing to find another way around. It is time to accept defeat.

___

03/06 Here is some more about Roger Ebert and his endearing online presence. Also, his twitter page is entertaining.