Viacom- which is CBS and MTV and Nickelodeon-

Or Google, which owns YouTube?

For those that fear for their privacy, they should relax. No person will be reading the logs of user JQPublic. The logs will be scoured by a script to identify a hit count of its illegally uploaded material, and the possible source of the upload. Anything that doesn't match one of those two criteria will be routed to dev/null. The only people that should be afraid are those who have uploaded every episode of Two and a Half Men.

On the other hand, Google routinely analyzes the same log files that people are screaming about in order to serve ads. Plus, remember, many people's YouTube accounts are tied to Google Blogger and Gmail accounts. And Google has cooperated with Communist China to turn over logs which resulted in the arrest and execution of political dissidents.

So who would you rather? Google or Viacom? Viacom hasn't killed anyone yet, despite their attempts with moron P-Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign on MTV.

I would say that Viacom has a legitimate complaint with Google's inability to filter out its copyrighted material. Google has actually been refusing to cooperate in this lawsuit by hiding behind the claim that their logs are private. And to an extent, they might be, but that is no reason to not cooperate in the lawsuit. Any review of the logs should be done by security experts under the supervision of both parties under a Non Disclosure Agreement.

At a deeper level, the question should be, should corporations like google track this amount of user data for access to their services? And should this be a lesson to everyone not to sign up for every free service out there?

Viacom- which is CBS and MTV and Nickelodeon-
Or Google, which owns YouTube?

For those that fear for their privacy, they should relax. No person will be reading the logs of user JQPublic. The logs will be scoured by a script to identify a hit count of its illegally uploaded material, and the possible source of the upload. Anything that doesn’t match one of those two criteria will be routed to dev/null. The only people that should be afraid are those who have uploaded every episode of Two and a Half Men.

On the other hand, Google routinely analyzes the same log files that people are screaming about in order to serve ads. Plus, remember, many people’s YouTube accounts are tied to Google Blogger and Gmail accounts. And Google has cooperated with Communist China to turn over logs which resulted in the arrest and execution of political dissidents.

So who would you rather? Google or Viacom? Viacom hasn’t killed anyone yet, despite their attempts with moron P-Diddy’s “Vote or Die” campaign on MTV.

I would say that Viacom has a legitimate complaint with Google’s inability to filter out its copyrighted material. Google has actually been refusing to cooperate in this lawsuit by hiding behind the claim that their logs are private. And to an extent, they might be, but that is no reason to not cooperate in the lawsuit. Any review of the logs should be done by security experts under the supervision of both parties under a Non Disclosure Agreement.

At a deeper level, the question should be, should corporations like google track this amount of user data for access to their services? And should this be a lesson to everyone not to sign up for every free service out there?

Problem is, if YouTube goes down, most people are going to have to resort to watching music videos and such on the TV or on Network websites, which is Viacom, ect.

I'd say try and boycott anything that is sold or sponsored by Viacom. Don't watch MTV, ect. Drive their ratings down so it hurts their funding. Don't shop at their sponsors either, and let them know why you aren't.

Problem is, if YouTube goes down, most people are going to have to resort to watching music videos and such on the TV or on Network websites, which is Viacom, ect.

I’d say try and boycott anything that is sold or sponsored by Viacom. Don’t watch MTV, ect. Drive their ratings down so it hurts their funding. Don’t shop at their sponsors either, and let them know why you aren’t.

The problem is, video clips can't be pushed onto an iTunes-like format, because a clip is not the finished product. Who's going to pay for a 30-second clip from a film? Nobody. That stuff *should* be free. It's basically a trailer. Indeed, studies show that people who excessively sample online media tend to buy a lot more of it offline, too. Why? Because they're fans. Non-fans don't buy CDs, DVDs, posters, attend gigs, etc.

Of course, if somebody is uploading full movies or TV shows on to YouTube, then go ahead and remove it, and ban their account. But a clip from a classic film, or highlights from a major sporting event? I see no harm in that at all, as all it does is promote the item in question. Nobody is losing anything, as there is, and never will be, an option to buy that clip.

The problem is, video clips can’t be pushed onto an iTunes-like format, because a clip is not the finished product. Who’s going to pay for a 30-second clip from a film? Nobody. That stuff *should* be free. It’s basically a trailer. Indeed, studies show that people who excessively sample online media tend to buy a lot more of it offline, too. Why? Because they’re fans. Non-fans don’t buy CDs, DVDs, posters, attend gigs, etc.

Of course, if somebody is uploading full movies or TV shows on to YouTube, then go ahead and remove it, and ban their account. But a clip from a classic film, or highlights from a major sporting event? I see no harm in that at all, as all it does is promote the item in question. Nobody is losing anything, as there is, and never will be, an option to buy that clip.