Reader Comments                                                                                                                Report an offensive comment

return to story

Viacom and Google Should Share the Load

All Reader Comments

page 2 of 3

Dar May 28, 2008 4:05 PM GMT A more compelling argument is companies that provide a content "sharing" system, such as youtube, are common carriers and are not the content providers themselves. By requiring any of these web sites to filter, process, and limit access to the communication between individuals they would be opening themselves up to every possible responsibility a content provider would have. (i.e lawsuits on "offensive" material) This would serve to destroy those content sharing services. Of course the immediate result would be the movement of those services outside the US, EU, and other places where this nonsense takes place.
Link to this comment

peterH May 28, 2008 3:37 PM GMT the argument is not that youtube should stop users uploading content, the greed of youtube (hence google) is the point of contention for content creators: youtube needs to give the fair share of revenue it generates from these content to content creators. but google wants all. it seems this article has already reached the conclusion. no?
Link to this comment

Doug Aurand May 28, 2008 2:53 PM GMT Everybody keeps taking a "technology" approach. Why doesn't Google/You Tube require verifiable identification of uploaders and block repeat offenders, much as eBay deals with people who break their rules, fraud, etc?
Link to this comment

Joe May 28, 2008 1:28 PM GMT The "Napster Generation" doesn't like to recognize the idea of "intellectual property rights" -- they think everything online should be free-for-the-taking.It will be a sad day for artists and all involved in the creation of intellectual property if Google/YouTube prevails in its defense against the Viacom suit.The DMCA never intended the "willful blindness" to infringement Google/YouTube practices with its business model.YouTube claims it would be "impossible" for it to police the site and keep infringing material from being posted, but it is interesting to note that it has no difficulty keeping pornographic content off the site.The reason YouTube is a full of infringing material is because the company engages in "willful blindness" allowing the posting of what is clearly copyrighted information.
Link to this comment

Aussie May 28, 2008 12:02 PM GMT We had a good conversation, now you, your the ring leader....oohh satche glaa boo verr!
Link to this comment

D_Skribe May 28, 2008 11:11 AM GMT BOYCOTT VIACOM!!! check there site for specific companies.
Link to this comment

Terry May 28, 2008 11:07 AM GMT "...what to do when infringing content is taken down but then immediately put back online...": - is a red herring. There is no infringing material. DMCA takedown notices are not proof of infringement. Youtube's defence is that of "fair use" which is guaranteed in the case of the clips in question because of their short nature and transformative effect. The repeated use of spurious takedown notices can in fact be regarded as copyright misuse, and this will be ruled on by the judge.
Link to this comment

Rob May 28, 2008 11:00 AM GMT If youtube has no copyright infringing material, nobody would go to youtube. Thats the whole point!!!
Link to this comment

patrick May 28, 2008 10:01 AM GMT The DMCA is already weighted too heavily towards content owners' desires with a stifling effect on both users and technology. Witness the lack of a (legal) equivalent of "rip mix burn" for storing your DVDs on the computer due to prohibitions in the DMCA. Likewise, the abuse of take-down notices is rampant. If the "content" companies want the technology companies to add (read:remove) features to protect their content, let them pay!Economically, the tech companies provide over 10x the revenue that the entertainment companies do; why should their best interests be given higher priority?
Link to this comment

Kelsey May 28, 2008 9:59 AM GMT I can already imagine the type of user backlash Youtube will get if it implements a filter that accidentally removes satire of copyrighted work. In order for filters to work, they really do need to be perfect in order to go by smoothly with the community. Sadly, I just don't think that is possible when you compare the similarity of satire with original content.The bigger question is this: How terrible is online copyright infringement? Is Viacom really losing the income that their lawsuit suggests they are losing? Studies already suggest that illegal downloading and other forms of copyright infringement are not hurting the industry and have done more to promote the work of independent artists than traditional media could.These are the facts: The technology of content delivery has changed, and as result, the traditional role of copyright holders have become threatened by the fact that people are now unwilling (and justifiably so) to pay 14 dollars for a CD. For all of those mourning the death of major entertainment monopolies such as Viacom, I say good riddance. Welcome to the new age of media, where the content creators, not holders, reap the rewards of their work.
Link to this comment

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!