Comments on: YouTube can't blame Viacom for ad woes

Report that suggests YouTube's advertising sales have been derailed by Viacom's lawsuit is incorrect. Because of piracy glut, Google's video-sharing site has always had limited ad options.

[Kwasiowusu]

The chickens coming home to roost for the ever evil Google, which thinks it can steal other people's intellectual property with impunity? You bet. serves Google right. Stealing does have consequences.

[badasscat]

What, pray tell, has Google "stolen"? Did they post this copyrighted material? Have they profited by it? (The point of this article is no, they have not and cannot.) Do the copyright holders no longer have the right to distribute their material?

Your rhetoric is just factually incorrect, not to mention inflammatory, and it does nothing to help the copyright holders' cause.

[daftkey]

badasscat: The point of the article is simply saying "Google can't have their cake and eat it too" and that it isn't Viacom's fault.

I will take issue with one piece though - it's incorrect to assume that the owner of something must lose that item outright for a theft to take place (in your reply, talking about the copyright holder losing the right to distribute their material). The value of the material diminishes when its copyright is infringed, just as the value of a sports car can be diminished by someone "borrowing" it without permission and taking it for a careless joyride. While the copyright holder still has the right to distribute their material, that right isn't worth anything if the material is available for no cost elsewhere.

[mcarrieri]

I have a new line of corporate business idea for YouTube. It would utilize YouTube's ease of use and popularity, with exlcusive commercial account generated video. A very specific and under utilized global market would be served with this new service. Please let me know if you have any contacts who may be interested.

Mike
[e-mail]