Seriously, do you not get spam in your gmail account? I definitely do. Not as much as in my school email account, but google definitely still has a problem with spam.
Anyone interested in the details should post their email address and I'll forward some.
This problem is one of filtering content, and can be explained by using a network firewall as an example. There are two types of filtering various firewalls can do, blacklist filtering and whitelist filtering.
Whitelist filtering is allowing only content that you know is ok. Blacklist is disallowing only what you know is bad.
The issue at had boils down to the fact that until now, only video distributors which use whitelist filtering have been around. TV broadcast companies (and I guess I am assuming here) don't air content unless they know the owner. Google on the other hand will distribute anything in the world unless someone tells them for sure that they shouldn't.
Napster used blacklist filtering too, if they hadn't they wouldn't have been busted for anything (not to mention unpopular).
As for my opinion...I work for a firewall company, and whitelist filtering is our competitive edge. That's what our customers trust more, so is it so wrong for Viacom to want content distributors to use the same cautious paradigm?
I think Viacom is making a lot of sense here. Sure they need to adapt their business model, but they don't have to do it on Google's terms.
Google ran into the online video market as fast as they could, and it seems like they are trying to force the world to conform to their vision. What we all need to realize is that there are alternatives.
There were, and still are, a lot of ways to get music online, but a lot of these were infringing copyrights, so they have been shut down, cleaned up, or exist because the continue to defy authorities. After a while, iTunes entered the picture and offered downloadable music that people seem to be eating up, while at the same time respecting our current copyright laws, and giving the owners of the content a big cut of the pie.
Viacom, I'm sure, wants a similarly sweet deal. Why should they submit to a vision of online video that screws them out of money they could be earning with a different system?
It seems to me that google may be acting legally, barely, but that doesn't mean that they will win this case, as the rules they are using to justify their actions could be overturned.
Similarly, just because they are a powerhouse and they have a vision for online video doesn't mean that they will be able to force that vision down the throats of every company with a different idea of how things could be.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, do you not get spam in your gmail account? I definitely do. Not as much as in my school email account, but google definitely still has a problem with spam.
Anyone interested in the details should post their email address and I'll forward some.
This problem is one of filtering content, and can be explained by using a network firewall as an example. There are two types of filtering various firewalls can do, blacklist filtering and whitelist filtering.
Whitelist filtering is allowing only content that you know is ok. Blacklist is disallowing only what you know is bad.
The issue at had boils down to the fact that until now, only video distributors which use whitelist filtering have been around. TV broadcast companies (and I guess I am assuming here) don't air content unless they know the owner. Google on the other hand will distribute anything in the world unless someone tells them for sure that they shouldn't.
Napster used blacklist filtering too, if they hadn't they wouldn't have been busted for anything (not to mention unpopular).
As for my opinion...I work for a firewall company, and whitelist filtering is our competitive edge. That's what our customers trust more, so is it so wrong for Viacom to want content distributors to use the same cautious paradigm?
I think Viacom is making a lot of sense here. Sure they need to adapt their business model, but they don't have to do it on Google's terms. Google ran into the online video market as fast as they could, and it seems like they are trying to force the world to conform to their vision. What we all need to realize is that there are alternatives. There were, and still are, a lot of ways to get music online, but a lot of these were infringing copyrights, so they have been shut down, cleaned up, or exist because the continue to defy authorities. After a while, iTunes entered the picture and offered downloadable music that people seem to be eating up, while at the same time respecting our current copyright laws, and giving the owners of the content a big cut of the pie. Viacom, I'm sure, wants a similarly sweet deal. Why should they submit to a vision of online video that screws them out of money they could be earning with a different system? It seems to me that google may be acting legally, barely, but that doesn't mean that they will win this case, as the rules they are using to justify their actions could be overturned. Similarly, just because they are a powerhouse and they have a vision for online video doesn't mean that they will be able to force that vision down the throats of every company with a different idea of how things could be.