Last week, YouTube implemented new features to give content partners more ways to block users from accessing video. “Block by Country” and “Enable Auto Block outside Ownership” are marketed as giving partners more control over their content, but these features have unsettling consequences for the online video medium.

“Block by Country” lets partners geo-block specific videos in areas around the world for any number of reasons—rights issues, cultural sensitivity, marketing strategy, etc. But by giving content partners the ability to block users in a given country, YouTube virtually guarantees a balkanization of the rights of viewers. Imagine if you had to live inside the United States (or New York City) to read a NYTimes.com article, or that you had to live in Russia to access certain Russian bloggers. Video is really the only type of content that is routinely treated this way, and by normalizing the practice of blocking content by country, YouTube is tugging at the fabric of the net.

This type of control may seem warranted for people who have put time and energy into creating a video. However, it fundamentally changes how we use and collectively understand the internet. One feature of the internet is that it transcends borders, bringing people closer together and facilitating communication. Uneven access to information by country is not what makes the internet a rich place—this special treatment of video portends a fractured and dangerous future for the web.

The other feature unveiled by YouTube, “Enable Auto Block outside Ownership” allows content owners to utilize YouTube’s Content ID system to automatically block any unauthorized mirror of a video. Though on its face this feature protects creators from others racking up views with their content, it also prohibits mirroring and viral distribution, two defenses against bad citizenship on YouTube. Kevin Driscoll of the YouTomb project had this to say:

Prior to the “Enable Auto Block outside Ownership” feature, mirrored videos existed more or less peacefully alongside “official” uploads because high-volume content owners could claim “ownership” (and, by extension, advertising revenue) on a mirrored video instead of having it blocked. By disallowing mirroring, videos are subject to a single-point-of-failure. Should the original uploader close his or her account, the video – and all of its comments, links, ratings, and responses – will disappear from the site.

It’s unclear whether the “Auto Block outside Ownership” feature would also prohibit video citations or short clips of protected videos from being uploaded. But such restrictions would have a negative effect on the ability of individuals to carry on conversations that rely on a fair use. As with other instances of YouTube’s Content ID system, the idea of fair use is nullified by a feature in the software.

Lawrence Lessig, in the seminal Code, writes that users are bound bound by code as if by law. “As the world is now, code writers are increasingly lawmakers. They determine what the defaults of the Internet will be.” The decisions written into the code of desktop software and websites structure the ways in which people can and will use them—they regulate the potential and limitations of the net, effectively as law.

These two features are prime examples of the maxim that “code is law.” By creating an environment where this sort of filtering and blocking is okay, YouTube is giving its partners powers over speech and activity that are at odds with the nature of the Internet.

“Despite its struggles, YouTube remains the primary home of web video and the accompanying discourse,” said Driscoll. “Any feature that privileges the property rights of partners over users, is disrespectful to the thousands of YouTube users that invested the site with their time, care, and culture.”

Posted by Adi Kamdar in Announcements |