Google appears unbeatable when it comes to winning hearts and minds of Internet users. This could be lesson for other big media firms who consider challenging search giant on copyright issues.
The world may have thrilled to the potential for a Google Phone, but what Google actually unveiled is its plan for a new smartphone world order.
• Photos: Unboxing Nexus One
faq Worms, Trojans, and SMS attacks are risks for mobile phones, but the biggest practical threat to users is losing the device.
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
provided by game manufacturer. Logo-tv for gays, lesbians, transgendered. why? RHAPSODY -horrible program and overbearing on ones computer, so many others do it better. Nick at nite-the old worst of the worst. Addictingames-should be illegal or by prescription only. Should I go on... What you you people think about their programming?
Your article neglects to mention that Viacom sued for the right to see every single Youtube posting, whether or not it included their content. Imagine Sony trying to get paid because someone downloaded Universal songs. The only thing more biased than your article was the judges decision.
25 years ago, in 1983, Windows 3.1 was still in production and there were no assignable rights to internet video clips.
Who assigned these non-existtant, unassigable rights to Viacom? And, where was the jury when this decision was being made?
(This will probably be an appropiate ending for Viacom and all dictatorial communication devices, left overfrom world war 2.)
People seem to be forgetting that Google is not is some sense better than Viacom. Google is the one that has collected AND KEEPS COLLECTING the data, yet they act like they care about peoples privacy. You can not track peoples on-line behavior and at the same time claim that you care about their privacy. Or yes, you can keep doing so if you do it in the land of the deluded.
So take note, dear reader:
If Google really seems better to you than Viacom, it is a fantasy. This type of articles by CNet only serve to avoid the real issues and promote Googles on-line PR campaign (which, by the way, looks like it could have been written by the Church of Scientology).
I see this as one important question: Why does Viacom need to know who I am and what I watched, regardless of who owns it? Posting of items they own, no problem. Watching their stuff, getting iffy, look at anonymous stats and get a better view of things. The whole database of everything I've watched on Youtube? Not a chance, why do they need it? This is a legal case, not a marketing tool. There IS a difference.
Some people are saying Google is amassing personal data on everyone. Does Google have too much of my information? Probably so, but then, I knew that when I started using their products and services and gave them that data. What I didn't know is that someone else who I don't trust gets that data.
Copyrights are important, they can help an artist continue to make good music, shows, media, whatever. The problem most people _perceive_ with this issue is that the money that is given in these cases never gets to the artist. The "label" gets it and they are seen as nothing more than a bad impression of a pimp and hustler (deserved or not, that's the perception a lot of younger people have). Agreements and partnerships do more to strengthen good thoughts than lawsuits. Need proof, look to the RIAA and MPAA.
When it comes down to it, though, the question is one of responsibility. Is Google responsible for the actions of it's users or are the users responsible for their own actions? If the first is held, I see a very dark time coming when lawyers sue everyone over everything "You touched this car that was stolen, so you are guilty too". Slippery slope arguements and all.
They've agreed to anonymize them after 18 months and they've been reluctant to give out information before. When the DOJ wanted search data to help defend COPA, Google fought the subpeona and managed to reduce the scope and amount of information they were required to give.
Viacom is being very hypocritical, they own iFilm -a video sharing service similar to YouTube- and it has plenty of infringing content. They demand from Google what they're unwilling to do themselves on a smaller scale. They want Google to filter, well the DMCA made that unattractive with it's murky definition of a service provider and potentially loosing safe harbor protection for filtering copyrighted content. Viacom complained that the only way to remove infringing works from YouTube was through the DMCA, which is the way they force people to do it on iFilm. Of Course Viacom is not above violating the copyright of other for their own gain, just ask Christopher Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(filmmaker))
Google seems to be a target for so called privacy groups, but I am not sure Google does anything more egregious than it's competitors. So far they've been the only ones to put up a fight when the government etc come asking for information. I also wonder about some of these groups like EPIC that think getting Google to replace it's name in the copyright notice at the bottom of Google.com with a link to it's privacy policy is a big win for privacy. I digress.
Personally, I've stopped watching/consuming Viacom's stuff all together.
He'd have an axe to grind with YouTube even if there wasn't infringing content, however the fact there is just gives him a channel.
This reminds me of nothing more than the logic of true school yard bullies (and every other kind of bully, for that matter) who extend their offense by stigmatizing their victim by calling them a "snitch" if they dare seek help from the authorities.
From school yards to corporate board rooms, the logic and narcissism of the criminal mind is the same, though perhaps only slightly more "sophisticated". The fact that this mindset is becoming common is nothing any of us should welcome.
There is no difference between sharing something on youtube for others to see than there is recording something on a VCR and letting your friends watch the tape. Besides, since when is it a bad thing that people watch media that you create? Isn't that the point?
Big Media is actually scared that people want to see their content. Even if an entire library of a show is posted online, it will only serve to direct people to the producer of that content. The only thing served by lawsuits such as this is to make informed consumers decide that Viacom is not worth their business.
- by desertmansd July 11, 2008 9:32 AM PDT
- Big companies like VIACOM had better start looking at a new buisness model. No matter what they do they will never be able to stifle the excanges of media over the internet. When one of these media companies finally figues out how to profit in the new environment they are going to score big.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (38 Comments)I have a feeling, though, that its probably going to take another generation before we see this.