The age that we are living in does not cease to amaze me. It is not about the gadgets and useful electronic devices we own. The completely new information and entertainment channels are the major achievement. Bloggers culture springs, giving a voice to virtually anyone and sites like YouTube, AOL videos, as well as similar ones supply the internet users with millions of funny, scary or just interesting clips, both long and short.
Google Inc. recognized the potential of YouTube and decides to make a move before any of the competitors did, acquiring the site for a whooping 1.7 billion $ last year. The popularity of YouTube was and still is its greatest asset, the downside of the page was that everybody could have uploaded anything desired. This means - copyrighted material was available on YouTube and intellectual property rights were violated.
The question that has risen is - how are issues like that going to be handled in the digital internet hooked society of today and tomorrow? Viacom is the owner of some of the copyrighted material viewable on YouTube. This entity's answer was a 1 billion $ lawsuit against Google Inc. Viacom's press release read, among other: "YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws", as well as: "There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity" (For the whole statement see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379240271535457.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
In my opinion, this case bears a lot of similarity to the Napster issue. The fundamental question is: can a for-profit organization earn money advertising while offering free entertainment to internet users? There is only one catch here: the content is copyrighted, so an organization earns money using someone else’s work! On the other hand: "Google supporters say YouTube's actions simply reflect the evolution of what an Internet company does and that protections intended for Web hosts in general should apply." (From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379140954435400.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
The fundamental difference between Napster and YouTube is the scale of the problem - there are far more YouTube users, than there were Napster users.
The lawsuit was filed after failed licensing negotiations between Google Inc. and Viacom. Viacom asked Google to remove the copyrighted content, which was apparently not done. Viacom vs. YouTube is the biggest problem, but it is not the only problem concerning copyrights of digital entertainment content. TimeWarner has similar worries about its content on YouTube, but it is willing reach a compromise with Google. Universal Music Group vs. MySpace is yet another pending big case worth mentioning (For more on all those cases, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379140954435400.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
The outcome of this case holds great significance. It is possible, that the way this case is resolved might set the benchmark for future issues of similar nature.
Google Inc. recognized the potential of YouTube and decides to make a move before any of the competitors did, acquiring the site for a whooping 1.7 billion $ last year. The popularity of YouTube was and still is its greatest asset, the downside of the page was that everybody could have uploaded anything desired. This means - copyrighted material was available on YouTube and intellectual property rights were violated.
The question that has risen is - how are issues like that going to be handled in the digital internet hooked society of today and tomorrow? Viacom is the owner of some of the copyrighted material viewable on YouTube. This entity's answer was a 1 billion $ lawsuit against Google Inc. Viacom's press release read, among other: "YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws", as well as: "There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity" (For the whole statement see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379240271535457.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
In my opinion, this case bears a lot of similarity to the Napster issue. The fundamental question is: can a for-profit organization earn money advertising while offering free entertainment to internet users? There is only one catch here: the content is copyrighted, so an organization earns money using someone else’s work! On the other hand: "Google supporters say YouTube's actions simply reflect the evolution of what an Internet company does and that protections intended for Web hosts in general should apply." (From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379140954435400.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
The fundamental difference between Napster and YouTube is the scale of the problem - there are far more YouTube users, than there were Napster users.
The lawsuit was filed after failed licensing negotiations between Google Inc. and Viacom. Viacom asked Google to remove the copyrighted content, which was apparently not done. Viacom vs. YouTube is the biggest problem, but it is not the only problem concerning copyrights of digital entertainment content. TimeWarner has similar worries about its content on YouTube, but it is willing reach a compromise with Google. Universal Music Group vs. MySpace is yet another pending big case worth mentioning (For more on all those cases, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117379140954435400.html?mod=home_whats_news_us ).
The outcome of this case holds great significance. It is possible, that the way this case is resolved might set the benchmark for future issues of similar nature.
