I have just read a very interesting post on the Google vs Viacom lawsuit on Mashable.com (a leading social networking blog).
(N.B. If you are new to the topic check the previous post on this blog for background info).
The Mashable article is very condemning of Viacom in making their requests for logging history, and also critical of the US judge who ruled in their favour on the action, mainly out of anger that Youtube users might now be at risk from facing potential (and probably successful) copyright violation lawsuits from Viacom.
The equation is pretty simple: as the quality of modern broadband provision increases, so too does the range of content that can be accessed illegally. A decade ago an evening’s Napster haul could rarely extend to beyond a few single mp3s, mostly chosen from a fairly narrow selection of what was currently popular. Now a few hours’ downloading can easily yield a hundred chart albums, maybe even a few Hollywood films, computer games or other software. It’s no wonder that the people responsible for publishing this content are keen to reclaim a market they used to rule, and in which now they are increasingly seen as out-dated ogres, selfishly refusing to share, like a child hoarding toys. Their latest lifeline involves using targeted advertising as a replacement revenue stream, which will finally reverse the slump in industry profits, restore confidence in an uneasy market and strike a balance which keeps users, artists and publishers happy. So goes the plan anyway…
