Viacom Vs. YouTube (Google)
"If there is one trial that I would want ringside seats to, this is it. On one side, you have the ex-champion of the content world in analog times, Viacom and all of its brands. And on the other side, you've got the newly minted champion of the digital world." -Kaan Yigit
After reading the article "Viacom vs. Google--A $1 Billion Test" that was distributed in class, I decided to dig a little futher. What has become apparent to me through the course of my readings is that there is a fine line between sharing media between users and stepping on the toes of a corporation's copyrights. What YouTube has done, in essence, is dig a heel hard into Viacom's billion dollar adverstising "Big Toe" by offering clips of their shows ad free.
This could potentially sway users from watching the ad laden shows on TV (Viacom) and instead get their broadcast fix on the Web (YouTube)... thus causing Viacom ratings to go down and key ad accounts for Viacom to withdraw their funds. Needless to say, Viacom is not happy about it and is ready to back that feeling with a whopping $1 Billion law-suit. According to copyright infringement law, a Web site (YouTube) can be held liable if:
1. The copywright infringment is so pervaisive that the Web site should have been aware of it. (ie full show clips)
2. The Web site induces users to post pirated material.
3. The Web site profits from the violations.
It looks to me that Google may be experiencing a rocky-road ahead.
Moral of the story: Watch where you step.
Viacom vs. YouTube Showdown.
"If there is one trial that I would want ringside seats to, this is it. On one side, you have the ex-champion of the content world in analog times, Viacom and all of its brands. And on the other side, you've got the newly minted champion of the digital world." -Kaan Yigit
After reading the article "Viacom vs. Google--A $1 Billion Test" that was distributed in class, I decided to dig a little futher. What has become apparent to me through the course of my readings is that there is a fine line between sharing media between users and stepping on the toes of a corporation's copyrights. What YouTube has done, in essence, is dig a heel hard into Viacom's billion dollar adverstising "Big Toe" by offering clips of their shows ad free.
This could potentially sway users from watching the ad laden shows on TV (Viacom) and instead get their broadcast fix on the Web (YouTube)... thus causing Viacom ratings to go down and key ad accounts for Viacom to withdraw their funds. Needless to say, Viacom is not happy about it and is ready to back that feeling with a whopping $1 Billion law-suit. According to copyright infringement law, a Web site (YouTube) can be held liable if:
1. The copywright infringment is so pervaisive that the Web site should have been aware of it. (ie full show clips)
2. The Web site induces users to post pirated material.
3. The Web site profits from the violations.
It looks to me that Google may be experiencing a rocky-road ahead.
Moral of the story: Watch where you step.
Viacom vs. YouTube Showdown.
No comments:
Post a Comment