Flikr Badge Blog

Well, so I'm to create something new in my blog! A Flikr badge. I'm not sure what that is yet, but I'm about to find out and post one here, or embed it, or whatever it takes to get it here. Let's see what that is all about, shall we? Here goes:

www.flickr.com

Google v. Viacom

Is YouTube responsible? That is the question posed for discussion in our personal blogs for this week.
Viacom is suing Google "for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube", according to the article we were assigned to read at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html. I think it's ridiculous, personally. Is Google responsible for what it put on one of their websites? Sure they are. Is it possible for Google to check for copywrite infringement on every single video uploaded to youtube? Not if they want the site to actually work. If they have to hire a room full of employees to screen every single video uploaded before allowing it to be viewed...well there are a number of things to consider here:

• It would have to be a REALLY LARGE room, with a LOT of employees (which would lower Google's stock value, due to excessive payroll)
• It would probably slow down the service to the point that today's short-attention-span generation would give up on it, and eventually the site would shut down (okay, that's an exaggeration, but I think the point is made)
• It's pointless and would be an undending task. How many times would they have to watch video and search the rest of the internet to be sure no one else has already posted it on their site? What about if a youtube user were to copy it off of one user's video list and adds it to their own, because they like it and want their friends and family to see it? How many re-views would this constitute for said roomfull of Google employees? It's neverending!

Now I'm not saying piracy is okay. Far from it. No, I think any type of video or audio piracy is wrong, and deprives the artists of their due income. But Viacom, while they have a point that Google should not be allowing videos from Viacom's site onto Youtube...isn't that Viacom's problem? Shouldn't they be putting protocols or security measures in place that don't allow their videos to be downloaded? Why is the onus on Google?

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, not the most reliable of sources, but this seems legit, with all references in place anyway), in July of 2006, thats 2 YEARS ago, there were over 100 million videos being watched every day, and some 65,000 new ones being added every day. How is Google supposed to review that many videos and keep the site free? How many would pay for the privledge of uploading a video to youtube if that is what Google had to do to pay for the LARGE ROOM of employees?

Now, as to the liability of individuals who steal and post videos that are copywrited, there is the issue of finding them, for certain, but the username makes that a little bit easier. I, as I previously mentioned, do NOT think it is okay to pirate videos from a commercial website or one that requires payment for viewing. If you take something (if it's even allowed, I don't know that it is) from say, www.funnyordie.com, the humor website that allows "comedians" or "people who think they're funny" to upload videos, and post it on youtube...I say, "meh! Who cares?" As the old saying goes, any publicity is good publicity. It gets people talking about...YOU. So if you post a video to funnyordie, and later it appears on youtube, what's the big deal? You aren't making money off of it on funnyordie, so you're not losing it if it's on youtube. Have you ever seen "Evolution of Dance" on youtube? Sure you have! If not, stop reading this and go watch it, I'll wait. It's worth it. There, now you've seen it. The guy doing all the action? Yeah, he never made a dime off of it. Later, he went on the talk show circuit, and...oh, why was some guy in a video on youtube on a talk show, like with Oprah? Because after generating 92,458,811 hits (as of this writing), people start to take notice...so, as I was saying, he did make some money after appearing on some talk shows and promoting himself rather well. But he didn't make any money from the video on youtube, and he didn't sue the students that posted it for an absurd amount of money either.

Third point, how do I feel about Viacom's getting access to my personal information because of this lawsuit? I want to sue somebody! No, I don't, not really, but the point is Viacom isn't privy to my personal information, as I didn't sign a waiver or an agreement with them for them to have my information. I've never uploaded or downloaded anything from them, so as far as I'm concerned they have no rights in this matter. None at all. They need to let it go, and start beefing up their security if they're so concerned about "their" contend showing up on youtube. Blaming Google for anything of Viacom's showing up on Google's youtube site is like blaming a pawn shop owner that unknowingly purchased something that was stolen. Lousy example, but let's say this pawn shop owner has 100 million customers a day. Give him a break if a few things slip through the cracks. Don't go get the personal information from every customer in the shop.

In conclusion, I don't think Viacom should be given this information, I don't think Google is responsible, and if Viacom can catch and prosecute anyone who steals from their site, great, but don't expect Google to do their dirty work for them.

I myself, have 8 videos on YouTube (username jclough59, check them out if you'd like) with a grand total of 838 views. Three of them are videos I got from other sources. Did I give credit to these other sources? No. Neither do I take credit for these videos. I got them (probably in an email), enjoyed them, and wanted to share them with anyone interested in having a laugh or whatever. So what? Am I depriving anyone of income? I doubt it, but to tell the truth, I'm not sure.

My 2¢ worth

Taxes. That favorite subject of oh, so many people! I have reviewed the "pros" & "cons" of the two web pages that were assigned to us, and this is my 2¢ worth right here:

So we pay taxes for all sorts of reasons, such as police protection, firefighters, road maintenance, etc. Good, great, grand. Internet sales tax, while it may seem like a good idea or a bad idea based on your point of view, would be very difficult to regulate. To quote MARK WEISBROT, the pro-tax columnist from GazetteXtra.com, "...most states cannot borrow to cover an operational budget deficit. This means they will cut spending, including such items as health insurance for children and low-income families, child care and elementary education. In fact, at least 18 states are already making these kinds of cuts, and the recession has barely started...So we cannot afford to lose tens of billions of dollars in state and local tax revenues by exempting Internet sales. But even if it were affordable, there is no good economic reason to do so." Sounds good, right? Hey, more taxes for schools (that one always gets them), that's gotta be good! The children are our future, etc. etc. I'm right at the forefront of more money for schools, especially teachers, the most woe-fully underpaid people in the country in my opinion. Here's the rub: How do we make sure the taxes collected from Internet sales (or anywhere else, for that matter) goes to the schools and not to the ever-expanding military budget? We don't, that's the short answer to that question. The government uses it as they see fit, whether the taxes are collected from state or federal sources.

Now, let's talk cons of this Internet sales tax proposal. KRISTINA M. RASMUSSEN, the con columnist from the aforementioned website GazetteXtra.com, points out that "...each state has a homegrown tax system with differing rates, definitions and applications. Five states have no sales tax, 30 don’t tax food, and 11 exempt nonprescription drugs. What one state considers food, another might tax as candy. Some states base taxes on where shipments originate, others on destination. Different rates and rules for 7,500-plus local jurisdictions add another dimension of complexity to the mix.

The cost to online retailers to calculate, collect and remit these taxes could very well force higher prices or even business closures during this time of economic uncertainty." Just what we need, more small businesses going under. Yeah, that'll help the economy.

Don't get me wrong, I pay taxes and I don't gripe too loudly about it. I'm not a tax protester by any standard of the definition. In fact, I try to live my life according to Bible principles, and Jesus said to "pay Caesar's things to Caesar" which was a tax question put to him by the Pharisees in an attempt to trip him up. So I pay my taxes, and leave the rest up to the government. If they pass the Internet seller's tax proposal, so be it, I'll pay it. I won't look for loopholes, I'll just bite the bullet and grumble to myself.

However, don't expect me to like it. My wife and I buy and sell quite a lot on the Internet, not entirely through eBay, but some and the tax proposal, if it includes small time sellers like us, or just big companies that we purchase from, will surely affect us one way or the other. And like all tax increase proposals, it's gonna hit us in the ol' Bank account. Yay.