Rainbow Man
Veteran
Yeah. Copyright infringement of course.
Welcome to the information age Viacom. Too bad the head of your company is still back in the pre-internet era.
It's not really surprising to see how media companies fail o see new opportunities and instead decide to feel threatened by new media such as youtube. The entertainmnet insdustry seen as a whole is an exceedingly shallow and conformant one rife with enforced conformity lack of imagination surface-over-substance and even more or less hidden sexism and racism. In all it bears most if not all the hallmarks of a stodgy conservative and it is not surprising new concepts are difficult to grasp for a great many stodgy conservatives at many levels in a company structure.
Together they represent significant mental inertia.
It is somewhat worrying what it would mean for the future should Viacom win this lawsuit. I don't really know their chance of success. It would seem (for an uneducated layperson such as myself) that youtube is in somewhat of a bind here since it can't rely on the "information carrier" defense available to ISPs since they don't just carry the copyright material. They actually store and serve it. And they can't rely on the "no copyright material present" defense used by for example bittorrent sites again because they actually store and serve the videos in question..
I don't think copyright law gives allowances for serving copytrighted stuff if you promise to remove it if/when the copyright holder asks you to., Oer does it?
Undoubtedly Viacom is asking for at least five bajillion dollars in "damages". As if this is actually measurable to any degree.
What if these youtube videos generated viacom sales? Logically that should mean viacom owes Youtube an advertising fee.
Peace.
Welcome to the information age Viacom. Too bad the head of your company is still back in the pre-internet era.
It's not really surprising to see how media companies fail o see new opportunities and instead decide to feel threatened by new media such as youtube. The entertainmnet insdustry seen as a whole is an exceedingly shallow and conformant one rife with enforced conformity lack of imagination surface-over-substance and even more or less hidden sexism and racism. In all it bears most if not all the hallmarks of a stodgy conservative and it is not surprising new concepts are difficult to grasp for a great many stodgy conservatives at many levels in a company structure.
Together they represent significant mental inertia.
It is somewhat worrying what it would mean for the future should Viacom win this lawsuit. I don't really know their chance of success. It would seem (for an uneducated layperson such as myself) that youtube is in somewhat of a bind here since it can't rely on the "information carrier" defense available to ISPs since they don't just carry the copyright material. They actually store and serve it. And they can't rely on the "no copyright material present" defense used by for example bittorrent sites again because they actually store and serve the videos in question..
I don't think copyright law gives allowances for serving copytrighted stuff if you promise to remove it if/when the copyright holder asks you to., Oer does it?
Undoubtedly Viacom is asking for at least five bajillion dollars in "damages". As if this is actually measurable to any degree.
What if these youtube videos generated viacom sales? Logically that should mean viacom owes Youtube an advertising fee.
Peace.