Case Study #2: YouTube vs. Copyright

Since its creation, YouTube has faced lots of copyright persecution. YouTube, a video-sharing site, allows registered users to upload videos and unregistered users to view them. Although the site contains defamation, pornography, and copyright restrictions, the site is unable to control everything that is uploaded to it. As a result, YouTube has been sued, as well as, criticized for its failure to check that its videos respect the laws of copyright.

When a registered user uploads a video, a message saying: “Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself” appears on the computer screen. Although, this warning is shown prior to uploading, many unauthorized clips are uploaded each day. Because YouTube does not view the videos before they are posted to the site, they are often blamed for copyright infringement. Thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, however, YouTube is able to leave the search to copyright holders who can issue a takedown notice to the site if there is a problem.

In the past, Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have all filed suits against YouTube. In these suits, each company argued that YouTube does not do enough to protect copyrighted material.

In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube for one billion dollars worth of damages, stating that over 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material were found on the site and had been viewed about 1.5 billion times. When the lawsuit was settled in July 2008, Viacom was given access to the records of what people watched on YouTube. As a result, many bloggers and consumers complained about Viacom’s potential privacy violations. They argued that if Viacom were to use the information collected from Google’s YouTube to track down and sue those who watched unauthorized copyrighted clips on the site, they would be in violation of the right to privacy. Since the lawsuit with Viacom, YouTube has created VideoID, a program that checks uploaded videos against a database of copyrighted content in order to reduce violations.

Over the last few years, there has been a lot of speculation whether taking down an unauthorized video on YouTube is enough. Many copyright holders feel that YouTube should be doing more than VideoID to ensure that a video is not in violation of copyright law. Many consumers, on the other hand, sympathize with YouTube rather than the copyright holders. They feel that it would be difficult to control the millions of YouTube videos uploaded each day and to ensure that each follows the guidelines of copyright.

In the end it is all a matter of who is responsible. Should YouTube be responsible for the millions of videos posted each day on its site or should it be copyright holders’ responsibility to search the site for violations? What do you think?

Say Farwell to Internet Explorer Six

Earlier today, Aten Design Group, a design firm in Denver, Colorado, hosted a mock funeral for Internet Explorer 6. The firm's funeral invitations were placed on their website, stating: "Internet Explorer Six, resident of the interwebs for over 8 years, died the morning of March 1, 2010 in Mountain View, California, as a result of a workplace injury sustained at the headquarters of Google, Inc."

At the memorial service, Internet Explorer Six resided in a coffin for its mourners to see (see image above). Those who attended were asked to share memories of the Internet Explorer software. One man was quoted saying, "I feel terrible admitting this, but ... I never really liked him. He had so many hang-ups, and he looked awful -- especially in his later years. But... he was always there when you needed him. You have to give him that."

When Aten Design Group first posted the mock funeral invitations, they were expecting a small number of attendees to pay their respects. As word spread about the death of Internet Explorer Six through online comments and Twitter tweets, the company soon realized that they had to book a larger space to hold the service. Although Internet Explorer 6 technically isn't dead yet, it is lagging. With a shift in website design from text heavy formats to more interactive multimedia formats, such as video, slide show, and sound, Internet Explorer 6 is unable to run the new technology as effectively as Safari, Firefox, or Internet Explorer 8.

To Read More, visit CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/04/ie6.funeral/index.html?hpt=T2