By Tamera H. BennettApril 29, 2007
Podzinger is the only consumer search engine that allows search of not only text, but also text within video feeds. Once a key word is detected in the video feed, the searcher can "jump" to the text in the video. The scanning process is more advanced than systems currently in place by Yahoo and Google as they only search the metatags associated with video feeds and not the actual text of the feeds.
In a recent article in Fast Company (see link below), it has been proposed that Podzinger can be used by copyright owners to search for infringing videos posted by third parties. The proposal made is not one of search and destroy. Meaning, find the infringing video and then require it to be removed from the internet. Rather, this is a proposal of search and make money.
As an example, if video content you control is posted on You Tube, instead of demanding You Tube remove the post (which typically does not lead to any compensation to the video copyright holder because of the protections of the DMCA), the video copyright holder could partner with Podzinger to "zing" in a commercial into the video feed. Every time the video is watched, a percentage of ad revenue would then be paid to the copyright holder.
This proposal sounds logical. But, will it really work? Will You Tube and other online posting services really allow ad dollars to be controlled by a third party source invading their website? I don't think so. There would have to be an agreement with You Tube in order for this to exist. How much money could be made from ad dollars when the payment will be divided by You Tube, Podzinger, the copyright holder, and who knows who else? Also, who controls the ad that is associated with the video that is being viewed?
Pennies from ad revenue can add up. In some cases the copyright holder is looking to control its footage and not have its value deflated by mass broadcast on the likes of You Tube. Although the Podzinger model is an amazing leap for technology, I am not sure the current proposal addresses the lost revenues to copyright holders by unauthorized footage posted on You Tube.
What do you think?