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?"

Comments

Re:Neither side

[apathy maybe]

Fuck the law.

And because it has been too short a time between hitting reply and submit, I will elaborate.

The law is flawed. The law was not created with your best interest at heart (unless you happen to be a corporation, wealthy person or otherwise have a lot of power in society). In fact, in cases where the law is obviously flawed (even by the standards of this society), it is your duty to break them. If you truly believe in the law, you would then accept punishment for that act (civil disobedience).

Me, I'm not a martyr, I don't like jails.

Re:what you mean is...

[bismark.a]

Imagine if I own a parking garage. I'm an innocent small business owner with no knowledge of investigative police work. Yet I am being sued because some moron parked a stolen car in my garage (which according to good business practices has an open-door policy). Dude, your analogy is all broken here. When people park their Lexus in the parking lot, the garage owner better not let 100 million other parkers drive away their car as and when they please.