actually the torrent thing, the ppl trying to stop torrents lost in the court. The judges agreed on the plea that the torrent ppl were making. That it (torrents) weren't illegal themselves, that it's the ppl who are violating the laws or something like that.
Originally Posted by adonai
edit: @ cpr, if viacom wins then practically everything will go down. The other companies will just follow the steps then everything will go down. Family guy, simpsons, animes that have been licensed, chapelle show, etc.
That is why we move to a different site. Goodbye YT, hello new provider.
Originally Posted by deuce22
Except for their will be past (future for us still) law suits by than for companies to go on, so that they can take down any provider before it becomes big. Meaning, you will have to keep finding newer and newer providers.
Originally Posted by coolpuprocks
Well, yea but...
Originally Posted by kayangelus
Every site will purposely ignore any copyright issues because by doing so they can attract massive people and thus can charge more for ad space. Thus, they make more money.
It's only when a site gets too powerful (like YT) will people (like Viacom) care.
And by that time the new website gets so big, another will be in baby state and waiting to grow.
A beautiful continuous cycle. That's how the Internet works.
kayangelus, Couldnt of said it any better myself. If YT doesn't win here, then there this cycle will go on and on.
Also just think about this....if YT does win, it leaves a lot more room for other websites to do the same and grow too. I mean there are dozens trying right now, but YT > all as of now, but if YT loses, that a lost to every other site out there also.
cpr, with that system you will only have some little websites at a given time, because as soon as it will get to be known a little bit it will be crushed... and personnally i don't think it is that great ^^"
sure enough, emule and other networks like that will stay up, but it is much more of a pain to watch some stupid videos isn't it ??
Many forget that not all countries are under the free trade agreement (and associated copyright laws). If YT moved it's server to a country that chooses to ignore copyright laws, it's free game for everyone ^_^
Even though YT probably won't do that, another provider from one of those countries will probably get big eventually.
Ha, I'd forgotten Google bought YouTube.
Here is my understanding of how television stations make money:
- I pay the cable company.
- Station gets money, whether I watch it or not.
Is this right? How does YouTube make money?
I hate MTV. I refuse to have anything to do with it. But I like watching music videos on YouTube. Before YouTube, I just didn't watch them - it's not like I was stolen away from MTV or anything. Besides, we once had a thread here about a music video (Pink's "Stupid Girls") with a link to it on MTV's website. Guess what? You can only watch it if you're in the States.
Originally Posted by coolpuprocks
If MTV provided a service on their website that was as accessible as YouTube, maybe I would watch videos there. If they offered higher-quality videos than YouTube does, or allowed people to download them, I wouldn't be surprised if people were willing to pay for that service.
AMVs infringing on copyrights sounds like a joke to me. In my opinion, they serve more to promote their contents than anything. I'd expect music companies to be up in arms over the songs being used before the show owners.
The filters talked about in the article are a good enough idea - but companies can't realistically expect Google to just pump one out and implement it right away without even testing it. Something like that would be hard to make to begin with, it doesn't happen overnight. So for now YouTube relies on users' discretion (from which Google believes it is protected under the law, much like Kazaa and Limewire and the like), and the diligence of the companies. Until a filter can be successfully made and put in place, the companies must patrol themselves like Viacom says they are (and I have yet to see why they care so much, I'm not sure how they're "losing money," and in such large amounts as they claim), or up to Google to hire people to check for copyrighted material.
Really, I'm kind of torn on who will win. I'd be interested to hear Viacom's proof of lost profits before I even remotely take their side, though. (Hey, I like YouTube.) Right now they just sound like whiners who would rather sue competition into the ground than provide their own, equivalent, service.
... how the hell did you manage to let them look at the data packets your transferring?
Anywho though, one thing to say. No process is cyclical, everything spirals to an outcome.