Viacom Files Lawsuit Against Google and YouTube
 

Media conglomerate Viacom said Tuesday that it was suing Google (GOOG) and its Internet video-sharing site YouTube for more than $1 billion over unauthorized use of its programming online.

LOL, Viacom is just jealous that they didn't buy YouTube instead of Google. This reminds me of the big record companies suing Napster. Just you wait. If history means anything, Viacom will be selling online videos before long. Can't do that if someone else is giving them away.

The Internet is funny that way. Taking legal measures to prevent the trafficing of information is like cutting the head off of a hydra. Two more will grow back in its place.

>This reminds me of the big record companies suing Napster.

Uhh, Napster lost that suit and went out of business.

Yeah, but they also fixed their legal issues and Napster is now back in business.

No, they didn't, they shut down and liquidated their assets. Another company bought the Napster name and slapped it on to a completely unrelated product.

Right, I don't mean to imply that if Viacom sues Google, and wins that suit that Google will go out of business like that. But they could be forced to remove the bulk of their (infridged upon) material from YouTube.

What I mean is that people use a particular technology for free (like Napster)and after the lawsuits, it is funny how many people are legally downloading for a buck a song (like new Napster, iTunes, music.msn, etc.)

Oh? Could've fooled me, because their site says they are still involved in downloading music from the Internet. I'd imagine they worked out the copyright issues. Even the logo is the same.

http://www.napster.com

Napster pre-lawsuit was a company that ran central servers that managed peer-to-peer connections for copying music. Napster today is a company that sells subscriptions that allow you to download DRM-laden music from the company (not peer-to-peer) and play it as long as you keep paying.

Those two services are about as unrelated as they can be and still involve music. Napster liquidated its assets after filing bankruptcy. Roxio bought the assets (including the name and logo) to brand their unrelated service.

True, but despite the differences in their operation and in management, my original statement still rings true. Napster is back in business.

No, it's not. It's out of business. Another company bought the name and used it.

The original company is no more and the new company isn't "back."

The labels accomplished what they set out to do: shut down Napster. It gained them nothing, really, but record companies are notoriously short-sighted.

Regardless of my Napster example, soon people will have to pay a buck to watch their favorite video just like they have to pay a buck to play their favorite song (legally) Something to look forward to.

Music today is much faster and easier to get for free than when Napster was in full swing. Napster's closing didn't affect music piracy at all. People pay for it now because they can, not because it isn't available for free.

In many, if not most, cases it's easier/faster/better to get the free/illegal stuff so it's a wonder anyone pays for music at all.

well i prefer staying away from the free stuff (been there done that) and i hate the spyware that comes with the "freebies" and programs. I am no idiot when it comes to computers by far and I prefer paying my .99 per song that I like instead of having to deal w/ any issues that could come my way.

In the little town I am from, Houma, la to be exact, there was a guy caught and was charged 7500.00 if I remember right, for the songs he illegally downloaded.

Don't ever think "It will never happen to me" you will be the next victim.

There are easy ways of being completely untraceable:

http://tor.eff.org/