backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 44 comment(s) - last by iNGEN.. on Jul 16 at 1:43 PM

"The more you tighten your grip, ...the more star systems will slip through your fingers": Viacom is gaining a reputation as an internet bully -- deserved or undeserved

As a media company, there's always a fine line to tread concerning copyright protection.  On the one hand you can't let your represented works be blatantly stolen, or you'll risk losing your source of income.  However, if you are too zealous in targeting users in mass who might be guilty of posting a stray video online, you risk alienating your audience.  Legally, you are entirely within your rights in doing so, but as a business that has to sell products or services, you risk losing the very business you try to protect.

Viacom recently won what many analysts say is a pyrrhic victory over Google that exemplifies this struggle.  Viacom, MTV, and Paramount Pictures' parent company, have been at war with Google for over a year now over Google property YouTube and its users' actions.  It slapped Google with a $1B USD copyright lawsuit, saying the company wasn't doing enough to prevent Viacom property, including South Park and the The Daily Show, from appearing on YouTube.

In a major legal victory last week, Viacom obtained a judge's order that Google must turn over all YouTube usernames, Internet Protocol addresses and the viewing histories of YouTube's users.  However, the legal victory turned into a PR disaster for Viacom, which is being blasted across the web for alleged censorship and privacy violation.  Viacom claims it never asked for and personal user information and its intentions are just.  However, its response has done little to quell the fury.

The battle yet again illustrated the dichotomy between the perception of online rights of the average populous and the perception of rights by copyright holders.  In reality, America has become a nation of infringers, according to many legal analysts.  Eighty percent of Americans regularly use the internet and a large percentage of these file share or watch movies online, violating copyright laws with each click. 

Even those innocent of overtly viewing infringed music or video likely have read articles, books, or papers that were improperly obtained or cited.  The fact of the matter is simply that the majority of internet users -- and the population -- infringe on a regular basis in their actions, speech, and interactions.  And they feel it's their right.  Studies have shown that most internet users believe they should be able to access whatever content they want online, for free.

Google built a reputation partly as a champion of this spirit.  It took on book publishers, newspapers, and Hollywood studios and won.  Today, many books are posted on Google which strict copyright interpretation would disallow, and many technically infringed materials are searchable through or hosted on Google and its properties.

Louis Solomon, an attorney representing Viacom and various other copyright holders fighting Youtube/Google said Google is savvy in its approach.  "I think there is little doubt that Google has been trying to be effective in its use of the press,” said Mr. Solomon.  “How else do you explain why they have been collecting and using IP addresses to monetize their site (for a while now), yet only now, with great self righteousness, claim to be concerned about producing IP addresses?"

Ricardo Reyes, a Google spokesman however argued that the Mr. Solomon's logic is flawed and stated, "The law is on our side."

Mr. Reyes assertion will be put to the test in court when the released user records are reviewed.  Much of the decision boils down to how strictly copyright laws are interpreted.  Strict interpretations have been applied in the past, such as in The Pirate Bay lawsuit.  Under these interpretations, even allowing infringed content to be searchable or casting a blind eye to it is a violation of the law.  However, Google's massive financial and legal pull may help it win a less strict interpretation.

Google is doing its part to publicly lobby against Viacom.  Google CEO Eric Schmidt accused Viacom of being overly litigious and stated, "You're either doing business with them or being sued by them."

He added that Viacom was "built on lawsuits".  Now sources close to Viacom and Google say the pair is close to reaching an agreement handing Viacom a redacted list of IPs.  This would be a victory for Google in some sense in that it would protect many of its users’ records, only turning over a select few.  Analysts say such a deal would likely owe much to Viacom hoping to do damage control on its negative PR.

Eric Hachenburg, the CEO of Metacafe, a video-sharing site which competes with YouTube suggested that Viacom could save money on PR damage control by simply dropping the lawsuit.  Hachenburg says content providers can pick between a couple paths for their content.  The first is to put their content on Hulu, which allows sharing/syndication and thus can be reposted on YouTube/Metacafe/etc. generally.

The alternative he said is for the industry to pursue a lengthy legal war similar to the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) battle in the music industry.  Hachenburg bemoaned, "I hope Viacom doesn't use the (YouTube user) information to sue consumers.  Clearly there is an underlying question: how much do you want to adapt your strategy to live in Web. 2.0? Hulu is embracing Web 2.0 ideas, and I think they are finding success."

As Viacom weighs the effects on its reputation it should be intriguing to see what option it pursues -- freeing its content, aggressively targeting users, or possibly a course of action somewhere in between.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Viacom should pick their battles
By Indianapolis on 7/8/2008 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 5
I would be careful about picking a fight with Google if I was a company like Viacom. If Viacom is really being such a PIA, Google could teach them a lesson by simply removing all official Viacom references/sites from their search engine. For example, if somebody searched for a new music album or movie that fell under the Viacom umbrella, Google could exclude the official promotional sites from the search results. Seems to me that's a pretty big stick that Google has. Of course Google would suffer too, but not nearly as much as Viacom.




RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By nycromes on 7/8/2008 10:51:58 AM , Rating: 5
Another example of a company unwilling to adapt to changing marketplaces. The bottom line is that copyright law is truly not structured around the technology of today. Some serious re-work needs to be done to protect both consumers and companies rights when it comes to content.

Pirating isn't right, but as long as people aren't posting the entire DVD series of South Park, I doubt Viacom is losing anything from a few clips being on YouTube. They want the ad revenue from people visiting their site, but they are digging a hole that goes deeper and deeper when it comes to the internet savy users. I for one will not be going to their site to look at content, and I don't feel much like turning on my TV to many of their shows either.

The bottom line, content producers need consumers much more than a consumer needs a particular content provider. The sooner this is learned by the big content companies, the better. The quicker a company adapts to the new circumstances surrounding their market, they get a competitive advantage. These are companies stuck in an early 90's mentality and they are reactive rather than proactive. The digital age is here, there is no going back.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By daniyarm on 7/8/2008 11:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
South Park is available to watch for free online, any episode, any time. Viacom needs to drop this lawsuit or suffer the same public "love" as RIAA and MPAA.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By ajfink on 7/8/2008 12:15:25 PM , Rating: 1
I've never gotten their online episodes to actually play. They have a terrible system. But it's the thought that counts.


By bodar on 7/8/2008 3:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I never had any problems watching 4 episodes in Firefox 2 with NoScript, though I whitelisted the main site. Some very minor framerate issues, similar to Hulu, but it's animation anyway. Even live action stuff is watchable on Hulu, especially animation/comedy where you don't notice that the framerate's a bit lower.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By kake on 7/8/2008 8:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
The only issue I've ever had is the way their system handles playing the video full screen. Just doesn't work for me. But with some fiddling the size ends up just fine on our TV.

We've actually watched the entire series from beginning to end from their website (southparkstudios.com) and have thoroughly enjoyed it. And bloody kudos to them for letting us do it legally!


By michael2k on 7/8/2008 11:36:36 AM , Rating: 3
That smacks of monopolistic anticompetitive behavior, the kind of stuff that got Microsoft in trouble.

Google can play fair and win; if they play dirty and win, this will bite them in 10 years.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By Locutus465 on 7/8/2008 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
How long could google get away with such tactics before they them selves are in hot water? I see where you're coming from but I think there's a good reason why google doesn't do this, they can't win this way.

1) They them selves would end up in a PR nightmare senario

2) Google has already been sued for favoring higher paying advertisers, I'm sure such actions would land them more expensive lawsuites

Both are very successful media companies, so it should be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally I hope a solution can be found that will benifit all... On the one hand posting whole movies on youtube in 10 minute segments is bad for the movie industry, if you want to see more great movies being made then that's bad for you... But at the same time, such strict interpetations of copy write laws aren't good enither.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By Solandri on 7/8/2008 12:53:44 PM , Rating: 5
This is the big one, the one that'll set precedent for the future of media on the Internet. This is the reason Google bought YouTube.

The problem isn't that people are posting South Park in 10 minute increments on YouTube. YouTube already has a system to report and take down copyrighted videos. There's a link for it at the bottom of every page they serve, and often I've seen a button for it pop up at just below the video. And fairly frequently I'll follow link from a friend or website to a page that says the video has been pulled for copyright violation.

The problem is that Viacom (and the other media companies) don't want to expend the effort and money to enforce their copyright, they want Google to do it for them. They don't want to hire a small army to click on every new video that pops up on YouTube and every other video/audio sharing service out there to find copyright violations. They want Google (and the rest of the Internet) to pro-actively search all new material that gets posted, and filter out (suspected) copyrighted materials before it's ever available to the public.

That's what's at stake here. Should the copyright holder be the one who has to seek out and pay to find copyright violations? Or should Google (and by extension every web site operator and forum moderator if the forum allows video/audio/photos to be posted) be the one who has to search all the materials posted on their sites by the public for copyright violation? It seems to me to be a copyright vs. free speech issue. Requiring forum operators to search all materials posted by the public for copyright violations would be so burdensome that most forum operators would simply quit.

Precedent is on Google's side. In the print world, a copyright violation usually sits unnoticed until the copyright holder spots it. When found, the copyright holder sends the magazine or newspaper a letter, and (because you can't un-print a publication) there's usually a cash settlement for use of the copyrighted item. Online though, people just pull the infringing item off their web site, which satisfies the legal requirement. The DMCA outlines this procedure pretty thoroughly, and Google already complies with those requirements (and then some). But the DMCA lacks any provisions for monetary compensation for these takedowns. So Viacom ends up burning money rooting out copyright violations, while getting nothing to offset their costs. While I do agree they would probably get some form of compensation for the violation, I don't know who should pay it if it's a random member of the public posting the copyrighted item.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By Locutus465 on 7/8/2008 2:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone is so honest, I know many people that will watch movies in 10 minute segments on youtube rather than buy a DVD.


By bodar on 7/8/2008 3:46:30 PM , Rating: 3
That's really sad. Just rent it FFS.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By PrinceGaz on 7/8/2008 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
People who watch movies in 10-minute segments on YouTube are not the sort of people who would otherwise have bought the DVD or visited the cinema to see it, as they obviously don't care about it very much if they're willing put up with poor picture quality and frequent interruptions.

At best, they might decide after twenty or thirty minutes that the film is a lot better than they expected it would be, and go out and buy it so they can enjoy it properly- Viacom wins. If not, it doesn't matter because they wouldn't have bought it anyway if it wasn't on YouTube.


By Locutus465 on 7/8/2008 4:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
In some cases yes, but this isn't always the case. You can't use "I wouldn't have gone to the movies or bought the dvd anyway" to justify going to youtube and watching the entire film in 10 minute segments. If you want to view an entire film then you should probably go to blockbuster, netflix or just buy the darn thing.


RE: Viacom should pick their battles
By walk2k on 7/8/2008 3:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
If google (youtube) is hosting the videos, then obviously they are responsible. I don't know what you mean about forums though, unless you mean ones that actually host images/videos, but few do that - otherwise it's just a link to somewhere else. The place that it links TO would be responsible for copyrights.


By Alkapwn on 7/8/2008 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 3
Let us pretend: I put a file on the shared folder of your hard drive. The copyright holder of that file finds it there and sues you for distributing it. Were you to blame?


By BigPeen on 7/8/2008 7:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in every other area of IP, its up the the copyright holder to enforce and monitor infringement of their IP. If you ask me, media shouldn't be any different.


Come again?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
Other than some bombastic remarks from Google executives, how exactly is Viacom "feeling the fallout" from their actions here?




RE: Come again?
By conspiracygirl on 7/8/2008 12:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno. I am just one person, but I altered my plans to take the kids to the movies this afternoon and I blocked Viacom channels on the TVs. It's a good day for a trip to the library.


RE: Come again?
By AntiM on 7/8/2008 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing myself. I did notice that Google News has a link to a CNET article proclaiming how "Viacom won't soon shed image as corporate bully" in the SCI/Tech section > http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

Worst case scenario for Viacom, ...they succeed in their billion dollar lawsuit and effectively shut down Youtube. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide will boycot their tv shows and movies.

Vicacom won't care, they have won a billion dollar settlement.

I wonder if the average person is even aware of the lawsuit. I'm not knocking Youtube, I hope they successfully defend themselves.

Update: I just noticed that the reference to the CNET article is no longer listed on Google news. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9985098-7.html?t...


RE: Come again?
By Solandri on 7/8/2008 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
On CNN the day after the court decision, the announcer said it was their most clicked-on story on their web site that day. So it does seem to have captured the attention and concern of the general public.


RE: Come again?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sure a story got clicked on...but does anything really think people are going to stop watching MTV and Nickelodeon, because Viacom sued Google?


RE: Come again?
By rdeegvainl on 7/8/2008 1:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped watching years ago... but not because of google. But i still end up paying for them cause they are part of my cable package.


RE: Come again?
By mcmilljb on 7/8/2008 5:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind cutting most of their crap plus some other channels... But that's how Viacom survives! The only way to beat Viacom would be to cut cable/satellite subscriptions or demand them to cut Viacom channels from basic packages. Short of that, they win as long as you keep your scription. Maybe Google will start their own IPTV Networks with original content. That would be one way to beat Viacom at their own game.


RE: Come again?
By iNGEN on 7/16/2008 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have. But then again, Masher, I'm one of those weirdos that actually conducts himself by principle (infrequent episodes of personal weakness exempted).


Guess why Viacom's bothering.
By Diosjenin on 7/8/2008 11:15:09 AM , Rating: 5
Does anybody really think that Viacom is at all concerned about their content here?

As a content provider, Viacom's business is to make that content as appealing and accessible as possible. Don't make it appealing and no one will want it (duh). Don't make it accessible and people will get frustrated and migrate to other content.

Looking at their business model that way, Viacom would ordinarily be thrilled that consumers enjoy their content so much that they would go to the trouble of making it more accessible for them. Of course, the way in which consumers are making it more accessible is a bit of a problem. Why?

quote:
They want the ad revenue from people visiting their site
(f/nycromes)

Bingo. When Viacom's content is distributed on websites (or through any other method) outside Viacom's control, they no longer receive the advertising dollars that they would ordinarily gain from visitors accessing their own websites. Those 15-30 second ads you have to sit through before seeing the latest Daily Show episode? Watch the same clip on YouTube and suddenly Viacom loses web traffic, loses people who would ordinarily view the advertisements, and in extreme cases could lose money from the advertisers whose responsibility it is to expose their advertisements to the highest viewership possible. Their content itself really has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

It should also be noted that this fully distinguishes Viacom's suit from the legal campaigns of the RIAA and the MPAA - because people actually have to buy content from them. Piracy or redistribution on their parts is direct revenue lost.

I fear the only resolution to Viacom's trouble (real or perceived) would be a restructuring of YouTube. If Google could use its copyright content filter to 1) determine the major media company a copyrighted video originates from, 2) arrange for one of their advertisers to show a corresponding ad on the page with revenues pointed in the direction of the copyright holder, and 3) link back to the 'official' site of origination, Viacom would have no complaints about its content served outside its official boundaries. Whether Google would agree to implement a system like that (or could even technically or legally do so) is trickier...




RE: Guess why Viacom's bothering.
By Alphafox78 on 7/8/2008 12:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds good to me. if Google could somehow insert advertising into videos that it detected were copyrighted in an un-obtrusive way I would be game. Maybe if they had a link, like Diosjenin suggests, to the copyright holders site or some add in which the revenue goes to them. As long as its not a commercial before the clip.. I really HATE watching those 30 seconds commercials when the clip you want to watch is only like 2 minutes long... I guess my DVR has spoiled me, but it pisses me off when the fast forward button doesnt work!!
The worst is when it makes you RE-WATCH the SAME add for EVERY clip you try to play!!!!


By FastLaneTX on 7/9/2008 12:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The worst is when it makes you RE-WATCH the SAME add for EVERY clip you try to play!!!!

This is, indeed, the worst problem with Viacom's attempts at online distribution. I watched the first two seasons of South Park and every single episode had the exact same four ads.

The thing is studies have shown that consumers don't generally dislike ads that support "free" content -- they just hate ads that are boring or poorly targeted. I'm a young, single guy; why the heck do I need to see ads for tampons, senior life insurance, kids' toys, etc.? There are plenty of ads I like and that might get me to buy something; they're just buried among all the other crap I have to fast-forward through. Heck, I'll even DVR shows I'm home for just so I can start watching half an hour later and skip the ads because they're so bad.


By neothe0ne on 7/8/2008 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your last paragraph just turned YouTube video into Google Video Search. aka, this idea fails.


The "Fallout" is unjustified.
By Smilin on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: The "Fallout" is unjustified.
By Suomynona on 7/8/2008 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, it's their intellectual property. It's not like they are being jerks about it either..they've posted ALL of southpark for free to anyone who visits their site


Um, last time I checked, if you make your content freely available somewhere, and then start firing off lawsuits because someone has made that same content freely available somewhere else, then yes, that makes you a jerk.

quote:
Google is blatantly profiting from someone else work and giving them a big middle finger instead of entering into an agreement.


Why the hell should they "enter into an agreement"? Copyright laws as they exist right now are broken, and Google would be going against its corporate ethos to enter into any sort of agreement that would serve to reinforce them. In a world where it's possible to make an unlimited number of copies with essentially 0 cost, traditional copyright laws lose most of their relevence.

quote:
If you look at the details of what information viacom has obtained and what restrictions the information comes with you can see that it's just for purposes of this lawsuit and viacom can't start sending you junkmail or whatever.


Doesn't matter. Unless Viacom owns Youtube, they have no right to any usage information from Youtube. Just because the information is "harmless" doesn't mean Viacom is entitled to have it.

quote:
Google is being a thief and a bully and everyone is just fine letting them get away with it because they "like" google.


There's your horse crap. Google isn't stealing from anyone, and trying to stand up to the likes of Viacom hardly makes them a bully. To be clear, Viacom is the only bully here.

And everyone is fine with Google doing what they do not because they "like" Google, but because they know Google is right. The old ways no longer apply in a digital world, and they, along with anyone who would support them, need to be cast out. Google is trying to realize this change, and that's why people support Google over Viacom.


RE: The "Fallout" is unjustified.
By Smilin on 7/8/2008 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Um, last time I checked, if you make your content freely available somewhere, and then start firing off lawsuits because someone has made that same content freely available somewhere else, then yes, that makes you a jerk.

Freely available does not mean free. The content generates traffic and ad revenue. It costs money to make the content so when someone else posts it they are basically stealing. By your logic if someone robs you then it makes you a jerk.

quote:

Why the hell should they "enter into an agreement"?


Because they are using someone else intellectual property that cost a great deal of money to make then profiting from it without paying anything back. Don't be dense.

quote:

Unless Viacom owns Youtube, they have no right to any usage information from Youtube. Just because the information is "harmless" doesn't mean Viacom is entitled to have it.


Tell it to the judge. The information was transferred by court order.

quote:

Google isn't stealing from anyone, and trying to stand up to the likes of Viacom hardly makes them a bully.


Wow, I must have missed Google when viewing the credits in a Southpark episode. I didn't realize they produced it.


By Suomynona on 7/8/2008 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Freely available does not mean free. The content generates traffic and ad revenue. It costs money to make the content so when someone else posts it they are basically stealing. By your logic if someone robs you then it makes you a jerk.


Nobody has been robbed. In order to be robbed, you have to be deprived of tangible goods or resources that were lawfully in your possession by an external party (the robber). Yes the content costs money and is worth something, but Viacom hasn't lost any content. The traffic and ad revenue, however, is speculative. Or rather, any traffic and ad revenue that Viacom has already earned is tangible, and nobody is taking that away from them. Any traffic and ad revenue that may be earned in the future is speculative, and cannot be "robbed" away from Viacom, because they do not possess it yet. Losing speculative revenue that you never had in the first place is not the same as being robbed.

So no, my logic doesn't assert that being robbed makes you a jerk. It asserts that if you do something speculative, like go out and buy a bunch of penny-stock in some obscure startup company, and then something happens to reduce the return from your speculative venture, such as the startup company going belly-up, and then you complain (and moreover, start filing lawsuits) about it as if something has been stolen from you, then you are a jerk. Nobody can rob something that is still speculative, and if Viacom wants to protect their speculative investments, they should be spending more time building a better website, and less time filing lawsuits over speculative losses.

quote:
Because they are using someone else intellectual property that cost a great deal of money to make then profiting from it without paying anything back.


No they aren't. At the very worst they are hosting it. Hosting is not the same as using. Independent Youtube users put the content there, not Google representatives or employees. If the use of the content bothers you so much, then at least be mad at the right people, the Youtube users that are posting the content in the first place.

One of the few things the DMCA actually got right was the safe-harbor clause, which specifically grants immunity to ISP's and hosting/service entities with respect to infringing actions made by users of that service. Google is simply not liable for the fact that some of their users posted infringing content to their servers.

quote:
Wow, I must have missed Google when viewing the credits in a Southpark episode. I didn't realize they produced it.


See above. Google is not responsible for the actions of its users.


Really?
By EntreHoras on 7/8/2008 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Jason. English is not my first language, but I wander if this quote is right:

quote:
Hachenburg bemoaned, "I hope Viacom doesn't don't use the (YouTube user) information to sue consumers.




RE: Really?
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/8/2008 11:31:53 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, that was the state the quote I grabbed from CNet was in. Typically I don't grammar proof quotes, as you would think that they'd be correct as who takes them down should be writing word for word.

Good catch! I wonder how long it will take CNet to correct their error... :)

Too bad they don't have the great reader feedback we have here @ DailyTech!!


By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that these big corps need a few Aikido lesson's from Mr Segal.

Move with your enemy and use it's power for your own good.

I think I used this example before of how these websites can help a show/TV company.

I watched a few clips on youtube of "Britain's Got Talent" after hearing people talk about it at work and found my self watching a show that I never would have done normally.

The quality of on-line content really isn't good enough (at the moment) to be a threat to TV show producers and I would have more sympathy if good quality entire shows were being shared, but that's not the case.

Whilst it's small clips and such that are being shared then they are better off trying to use sites like youtube as a cheap/free marketing tool?




Typo...
By voodooboy on 7/8/2008 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
"The alternative he said is for the industry to pursue and a lengthy legal war..."

I don't think the AND is needed...




By cubby1223 on 7/8/2008 1:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
but the other half of me knows that this is the internet, where everything is all talk and no action - Solitarity!

Give a week of no new headlines, and most everyone will have forgotten about the Viacom / Google fiasco.




Really?
By keegssj on 7/8/2008 2:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eighty percent of Americans regularly use the internet and a large percentage of these file share or watch movies online, violating copyright laws with each click.


I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of internet users share files and watch movies online (implied illegally).




Come on really
By Eugenics on 7/8/2008 3:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Is what Viacom offering really even worth a damn? They produce trash that degrades society. Good game Viacom, you made a buck and did nothing worthwhile.




How about this Viacom
By Squidward on 7/9/2008 2:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of lengthy lawsuits and attempting to shut down any site that posts even a small snippet of your copyrighted works which is only irritating the people who would view your programs, perhaps you should consider that this is the digital age and companies such as google are making incredible earnings by realizing it's potential.

Did it ever cross anyones mind at the corporate offices that you could actually have a site that would allow users to view your copyrighted works that are ad supported and would bring in additonal revenue you never had before?

The internet IS the content medium of the future and will only continue to grow each passing year. Stop clinging to an old earnings model and embrace the new market that is emerging. The more you attempt to keep the status quo the more it's going to cost you! No lawsuit is going to get you out of that predicament.

Too bad they're probably never going to understand this post, even if they did actually read it.




Oh, Well...
By cubdukat on 7/9/2008 7:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
...there just went half of the potential audience for the "Star Trek" reboot, yours truly included...




Absolutely Ridiculous!
By MC17 on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Absolutely Ridiculous!
By FaceMaster on 7/8/2008 1:57:27 PM , Rating: 1
Uhh... I don't understand what you just said, but I'll just vote you down like everybody else has because I have no free will.


RE: Absolutely Ridiculous!
By BigPeen on 7/8/2008 7:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. Of course they have the right to protect their assets. Just like the government has a right to police it citizens. BUT THEIR ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THEY CAN AND SHOULD DO.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki