Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Viacom Files Landmark Copyright Case Against Google, YouTube

   (Mar 13, 2007 - 2:34 PM)

   Actually, this is what I meant by adapting to the Internet: Viacom shouldn't expect Youtube to police its user base. That's just not how things work on the Internet. Things are based upon trust in the goodwill of humanity. In this context, someone that posts a "OMG that's so cool" video shouldn't be seen as a copyright infringer, and the system that enables this shouldn't be seen as one either. Certainly, this is probably too idealistic a trust to extend to everyone, but it's working surprisingly well.
   
   But I'll discuss what you said anyway.
   
   There seems to be an equivocation between two different effects here. Different things happen depending on what exactly is being shared. One is quite desirable, the other is definately not.
   
   The negative effect first: if the entirety of a small or one-off project appears on YouTube (i.e. AniMusic or something), that's certainly a problem - I won't deny that. That's what DMCA takedowns are for.
   
   But if only a small part of the whole product is being distributed and it doesn't fall under the legal protections of parody and the such, I would doubt that seeing highlights of a certain show would make a person less likely to watch/purchase something (if they would have wanted to do so anyway). It's not like entire seasons of Viacom shows are appearing on Youtube, free for all the view. For example, an "underpants gnomes" South Park clip on YouTube, which was shown in my Comp Sci class, made many people in the class want to seek out more South Park. Many companies are out to emulate this sort of thing as a marketing scheme. However, this sort of thing is definitely a legal gray area - I expect that sustaining this sort of dynamic was a goal of what Viacom and Youtube were trying to bargain towards.
   
   I just don't see what threat Viacom seems to see from Youtube at the current time, and there'd be plenty of benefits from just letting things be. If this is some sort of attempt to make a point, it'd just serve to drive things underground again, like after the demise of Napster and again after Kazaa - a lose-lose situation. Viacom is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or, in the views of some other articles, picking one baby and throwing out the rest). Are they blinded from the benefits of cooperation by the argument that they're somehow losing money from what, I think, they should consider free advertising?
   
   Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. :)

2. Comment - Viacom Files Landmark Copyright Case Against Google, YouTube

   (Mar 13, 2007 - 1:36 PM)

   I think the article does a fair job of bringing out some of the problems about file-sharing, but it casts things in much more doom and gloom than warranted, and neglects to include any quotes or arguments from Google or Youtube. I'm rather turned away by all this speculation and unsupported opinions ("settlement...appears impossible", "it could change the chemistry of video sharing services everywhere"), and much of the text seems to assume the truth of Viacom arguments, i.e. Google either loses or settles. This case might not even be "landmark" - all the other articles I've read so far have portrayed this event as a single case of bargaining gone wrong.
   
   I hope companies start becoming more adaptive to the freer spirit of the Internet and the so-called user-created "Web 2.0", instead of trying to make the Internet conform to the existing systems of traditional media.