Viacom vs. YouTube - Whose Side Are You On?

DigitalDame2 writes "Lance Ulanoff of PCMag believes that the Viacom and YouTube lawsuit is a bad idea because it has the potential to damage the burgeoning online video business; instead, it could work with the millions of people who are currently viewing Viacom content on YouTube. On the other side, Jim Louderback, an editor-in-chief of PCMag says that Lance doesn't know what he's talking about: with all the content available online for free, Viacom can kiss those investments goodbye. YouTube is actively filtering, actively allowing uploads, and making money off of the content that's been uploaded. The courts will find that Viacom has been wronged, that Google has not done enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and that Google owes Viacom reparations. Whose side are you on?"

I'm going to put off voting.

[andy314159pi]

Considering our likely imminent destruction, [slashdot.org] I'm going to refrain from voting until we rebuild civilization.

Sides? Sides?

[SQL Error]

Never mind sides. I'll be over here selling popcorn.

Re:Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more interested in knowing if Google has jumped the shark?

In my opinion, the series went downhill when Yahoo got pregnant and they killed off Lycos.

Whose side are you on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on whose side the terrorists are.

Re:That's like asking...

[iamacat]

Godwin! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Whose side?

[TodMinuit]

Once they're broadcast it over free television, they're not allowed to restrict or charge for it again

WOW! I didn't know we could come up with laws out of our ass!

I deem it illegal to speak the word "flauga". So shall it be written, so shall it be done!