Copyright infringement apologists believe that Google will be protected from Viacom’s $1 billion YouTube lawsuit because of the Safe Harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Google argues that Viacom’s lawsuit “threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information” over the Internet.
But what does the law say?
I haven’t found very many intelligent, informed discussions about the YouTube/Viacom lawsuit that address the actual allegations and defenses in much depth.
So today on E-consultancy.com, I posted Part I of a two-part series that looks closely at the real legal issues that are in play.
I like Rupert Murdoch. You simply can’t argue with success. The way he expanded News Corp. into a global media powerhouse is nothing short of remarkable and even if you don’t agree with his beliefs, I think any reasonable person has to respect what he’s done. Most recently, he’s continued to impress. The expansion of his empire into the digital space has seen a number of shrewd moves, most notably his acquisition of MySpace for $580 million. He went on to ink a $900 million MySpace advertising deal with Google and given that Facebook, which still lags MySpace by a considerable margin in terms of registered users, traffic and revenues, has been raising money at a $15 billion valuation, it’s safe to say that Murdoch scored a coup d’état with MySpace.
While some have celebrated the death of DRM, DRM has been little more than a battle in a larger war. The war pits consumers, many of whom believe the theft of creative works is acceptable, against the owners of intellectual property.
Wired is reporting that the music industry is now experimenting with digital watermarking solutions as an alternative to DRM:
Watermarking offers copyright protection by letting a company track music that finds its way to illegal peer-to-peer networks. At its most precise, a watermark could encode a unique serial number that a music company could match to the original purchaser. So far, though, labels say they won’t do that: Warner and EMI have not embraced watermarking at all, while Sony’s and Universal’s DRM-free lineups contain “anonymous” watermarks that won’t trace to an individual.
I enjoy reading posts by Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins over at Mashable even if I don’t often agree with his arguments. I much prefer using Duncan Riley’s posts as inspiration for scathing responses, but tonight I had to address Mark’s “Huckabama Wins, a Few Observations” post. In it, he declares:
Friends, bloggers, countrymen - lend me your ears. Citizen journalism is here and it works. The MSM [mainstream media] is officially on notice.
Arianna Huffington, the loathsome liberal who makes Bill Maher’s otherwise entertaining series on HBO a struggle to watch, was the subject of a scathing editorial by syndicated columnist Froma Harrop. In it, Froma essentially calls Arianna, founder of new media darling The Huffington Post, a downright hypocrite.
Why? Arianna, the enemy of capitalist pigs and greedy old media moguls, admits that paying the bloggers who make her growing media empire what it is, is “not our financial model.” Yes, the woman who has described herself as “a compassionate and progressive populist” who champions the cause of average proletariats against their corporate oppressors apparently can’t compensate the bulk of the bloggers who are contributing to her business. Yet she has no problem lashing out at “big media” when it comes to its unwillingness to give in to striking Hollywood writers’ demands. Cute.
That appears to be the case if Radiohead’s experience with its new album “In Rainbows” is going to be the norm for bands that opt to let the public decide what their music is worth. The popular British band recently released their latest album directly on their website as a digital download. Fans were able to download the album for whatever price they were willing to pay, including $0. A study released today revealed that most downloaders (62%) chose $0.
With all the debate about new media versus old media, I figured it was time to discuss in greater detail where I believe media is going. It isn’t new media or old media; it’s integrated media. I am not the originator of the concept, but it is one that I am convinced represents the future of media.
What is Integrated Media?
Mark another victory for “old media.” Celebrity gossip guru and prominent blogger Perez Hilton has announced that he is making the move to television. Yes, the self-proclaimed Queen of All Media will have his own television show on VH1 starting in September. VH1, of course, is owned by MTV Networks, which is a division of Viacom. Therefore some blogging purists will likely consider Perez to be the ultimate sellout.
Wired has reprinted a story entitled “Open-Source Journalism: It’s a Lot Tougher Than You Think” which provides some interesting insights into the citizen journalism movement.
There are many Web 2.0 proponents who feel that the efforts of citizen journalism will marginalize the need for professional reporters and news outlets. After all, if we’re completely capable of reporting on the news ourselves and have means of distributing content freely on the Internet, what real need is there for a mainstream press that often does a poor job reporting on the news? Others contend that citizen journalists lack the skills, resources and access necessary to provide anywhere near the coverage necessary to serve as a viable source of news.
The majority of Americans will wake up today and not realize it, but the seeds of a revolution were planted yesterday. According to our good friend Duncan Riley at TechCrunch, this revolution threatens network television.keep looking »