1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Viacom says stop, Google stays "nah"

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by JayFarrar, May 26, 2008.

  1. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Thought this was interesting.

    Google: Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom

    Here's the thing, someone is paying to produce the content that most can now get on the Internet for free. In some cases they do this legally, in other cases, they don't.
    What is fascinating to me, is that this really sets the bar for what is coming.
    Will the law really come to the Wild West that is the current model for the internet?
    The implications for the media business are astonishing.
    Let's use a future Tribune as an example.
    You can get a print product delivered to your house or office. You can get an electronic version sent to your computer of PDA and it also includes all the wire stories that the Trib gets as part of the customized news package that you select.
    When you subscribe to the paper and a man comes to your house, and you get a box that delivers high-speed internet. You pick the news and entertainment feeds. You no longer need cable, everything comes through your Tribune subscription.
    Pick and choose the channels and networks you want to watch. Or just favorite shows.
    Satellite radio is included and you don't need Tivo, because everything is on-demand.
  2. Google has a slight problem in this case:

    YouTube says it takes off the copy-right protected videos as soon as they can get to them, which can mean weeks. Yet, we never see any porn on YouTube. Why is that? Because the company is swooping down on that potentially damaging shit immediately but scuffling their feet on the copyright infringement.
  3. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    you're right on the porn part. the rest? hell, i don't know.
  4. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Yeah ... I think it's pretty clear that's the case.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page