One such case involved two media giants that include Google and Viacom. Google is a new media technology giant that owns and operates numerous websites including YouTube. On YouTube, users upload, share and view content that has been criticized by various corporations for including copyright material. Viacom raised a similar claim against YouTube saying that Google users constantly upload and view Viacom copyright content and Google earns profit through such contents. Viacom made a claim of one billion dollars against Google. Google did not deny the claim that users upload copyrighted content. Google counterclaimed that is was working under legal jurisdiction by following Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provisions. Finally, Google won the case based on this claim. In this paper, we attempt to focus on this particular case of Viacom vs. Google and discuss the regulatory issues that have arisen from this issue. We would be analyzing this case and the factors that influence these regulatory issues. Viacom vs. Google Viacom vs. Google is one of the most discussed and important cases in the recent era that concern with copyright issues and their regulation. Both media giants came at a clash with each other over the content posted on Google’s YouTube. YouTube is a subsidiary of Google that operates as a leading social networking site where users can post upload, share and view photos. While most of the content viewed on YouTube is uploaded by individuals, corporations have also used the website to promote their own content. These include other media giants such as BBC, CBS, and CNN etc. Google generates great amount of revenue from the website since it is the leading video uploading and viewing website. Though video sharing, uploading and viewing is free on the website, the website generates money through the advertisements posted on the right hand corner of the website. However, YouTube has been under great scrutiny due to the fact that it is unable to manage the content being uploaded on its website. Numerous companies including Viacom have filed lawsuits against Google for being unable to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material on the website. Even though, the website warns against uploading videos containing any copyright issues but strict action against the issue is yet to be taken. The legal law suit that Viacom filed against Google demanded an amount of 1 billion dollars in damages due to the copyrighted content placed on YouTube that belonged exclusively to Viacom. These clips included episodes of Viacom’s favorite shows including South Park, SpongeBob Square Pants, and The Colbert Report. Viacom argued that it found more than ‘160,000 clips of its programming have been available on YouTube and that they had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times’ (Peters, 2007). Viacom further demanded that the court take serious action against Google to prevent it from posting other such videos on their YouTube website. Main regulatory issues The argument presented by Viacom is accurate on a variety of aspects. This case does indeed raise certain regulatory issues, most important among which is the issue of presenting copyrighted material. The UK copyright law allows certain kinds of works to be copyrighted. These include literary, dramatic,
Cite this document
(“Attempts to Control the Downloading of Copyright Material Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/63602-attempts-to-control-the-downloading-of-copyright
(Attempts to Control the Downloading of Copyright Material Essay)
“Attempts to Control the Downloading of Copyright Material Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/63602-attempts-to-control-the-downloading-of-copyright.
Cited: 0 times
Viacom vs. Google [The name of the writer will appear here] [The name of the institution will appear here] [The name of the Professor] [Course] [Date] Introduction In today’s world where everything is possible over the internet and as internet has grown up to one of the most powerful entities, a number of problems have arisen…
On the other hand, in order for Nike to prove that there was infringement, it must establish, through documentation of its commercial use, that it was the first to use the “Just do it right” trademark and that the other party had used a similar a trademark without Nike’s consent.
is an internet-based company that had developed a peer-to-peer sophisticated system of file sharing that enables its users to share MP3 files with each other. This system allows its users to directly access the music files of other users, using the Napster software and by logging to it, without having such files uploaded first and subsequently downloaded from that system.
This topic has generated controversial discussions globally. Many people may view it as being risk-free although its impacts are detrimental to companies mainly in the entertainment sector. File sharing has negative economic impacts. Recent studies reveal that the entertainment industry that is film, software, video game and record companies suffers huge losses annually owing to internet piracy.
Innovations may come as products, ideas or concepts that may be unique in its current state of affairs and never tested for applicability. This brings us to a situation whereby the innovator may try to protect his invention so as to benefit from its uniqueness.
The advent of a computer program known as MP3 revolutionized downloading of music because music files could be compressed using a compression algorithm. This algorithm detects all repetitive patterns within a music file and assigns them a common code, replacing the code wherever the repetitive pattern occurs.
Now the problems become more real as copyrighted information reached even the remotest part of a country without the knowledge of the author. While professional and honest users observe ethics, the hackers are doing their best to have economic gains with less cost by looting websites and downloading copyrighted materials.
There were several incidents in the past, in which most of the large music producing companies initiated legal action against such P2P networks, like Napster, Grokster, Kazaa and Limewire. In all those cases the court decided