,
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Viacom has recently leveled a $1 billion lawsuit against Google’s YouTube, but it could be an example of Sumner Redstone (pictured above) spitting into the wind, even if Viacom does win the lawsuit, as expected a la the RIAA vs. Napster a few years back.
Intellectual property rights laws remain in effect, and rightly so, a book, song, movies, etc., are commodities 9entertainment commodities) that artists and their agents (entertainment and media conglomerates) sell for a profit.
The purveyors of those medium, both the artists and the corporations have a right to profit from those commodities and no one else has any right to post those commodities online, any more than anyone has the right to bootleg copies of those medium for sale outside the contract signed between artist and agent (distribution company).
Some have argued that Viacom should simply accept YouTube’s running those clips as “free advertising,” but why, especially when the RIAA was successful in reining in Napster?
There seems to be no down side for Viacom here.
They aren’t going to “alienate millions of potential fans,” because they don’t want non-paying fans. Of course, they may not get their billion dollars either, as it’s more likely that some sort of Napster like, pay-as-you-go deal will be reached between the two.
I supported the RIAA against Napster because I support intellectual property rights and I support Viacom here.
Those that want to argue in favor of Napster and YouTube and the free "sharing" of all such property must make the argument that intellectual property rights are an anachronsim in today's world.
2 comments:
I don't think viacom will win. The difference between napster and youtube is this, people are using it to do legal things. Napster's only purpose was to "share" music. Everyone was using it to steal music. People use Youtube to upload home videos original movies and just p[lain sillyness, which is all legal.
It's an almost foregone conclusion among the legal community that Viacom will win, because there's no question that the property is OWNED by Viacom and property rights laws require that YouTube or anyone else must pay to play (use) that copyrighted material.
What continues to surprise me is that there hasn't been a single challenge directed at changing the current intellectual property rights laws.
I can only guess that that's because those who favor a more open access, don't know how to frame the argument.
Post a Comment