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?"

pleh, type-o

[RingDev]

"...working to prevent permitted copy written material from appearing"

should read

"...working to prevent unpermitted copy written material from appearing"

Makes a little more sense that way.

-Rick

Re:Falling for the *IAA Cool-Aid

[Stonehand]

What happened to "Fair Use"? If there's a relevant passage in a book, can I not quote it? Is Viacom complaining about entire episodes or just small portions. For example, if there's a bit about John Stewart ripping on D. Chaney, I don't see the difference between that and quoting a Shakespeare soliloquy (well... one is written better...)


Entire. And uploading content to a popular public network is wide-scale distribution and public performance. "Fair use" has some limits, you know -- it's not a blanket license to do anything so long as you're not directly charging money, despite the fact that many Slashdotters think otherwise. Go see Stanford's site on it.

Besides, if it's a good bit, wouldn't I want to see more? Isn't that free advertising?

It's not really legal to rip the fourth consecutive hamburger out of the hands of a morbidly obese stranger and throw it on the floor, either, even if it's good for them.