Hi Carmine,
 
I don't mean to divert the topic of this thread for long but out of curiosity, can you tell me if there's any strong indication that sites like YouTube will no longer be allowed?  I understand and appreciate the aspect of intellectual property but YouTube is basically an online of example of what people have been doing everyday since the invention of cassette and video recorders.  I recall many a copy of a popular album back in the day being being passed on to friends by the original buyer.
 
Having a personal interest in music production, there is a part of me that stronlgy appreciates the development of protections meant to insure my possibilities where profit is concerned.  On the other hand there is that wonderful thing about word of mouth and the "good press" that comes through sharing music tracks and videos that is also beneficial to those offering whatever their art is to the public.
 
In any event, uploads to YouTube, cannot be copied (or not easily copied) by other users and copies supplied to others by those who upload are not sold to those who request them.  Albeit they may be using material without express permission, how are YouTube and Google making money if they are not selling, directly or indirectly, without benefit of license.
 
Having to snatch a penny for every little thing, in the long run, does more harm than good.  Last night I found a couple of clips that the late great Carmen McCrae had done for TV more than twenty years ago.  Couldn't copy them and didn't want to.  Yet the ability to view this little part of history I had never seen before was priceless because it is now at least logged in my memory.  That to me is great.
 
Regards,
 
Venson

The content producers concerned don't generally mind their works being shown on YouTube, it's of a very low quality compared to even standard TV. It's similar to music being played on FM radio, in that it's of lower quality and promotes the retail sale of the real thing. Only difference is that the unlike radio, the copyright holders (and performers) don't get a licensing share of having their work showcased. In time, Google (and others) are working towards a system that automatically identifies the registered rights holder of the work uploaded and depending on the wishes of the rights holder, either denies the content being listed or allows it to be listed and passes a proportion of the advertising revenue back to the 3rd party.

Hi Carmine,so are you saying it's all about the money[like it's always been?]
 
  O.T.

Google is making the same mistakes that made Napster go belly up a decade ago.
 
Unable (unwilling) to strike a money deal with Viacom recently, the media giant demanded Google remove 100,000 of its videos from YouTube.
 
Viacom then signed a deal with upstart video service Joost.com.  
 
Did this spur Google to start talking turkey with the other media firms?  No!  Google let deals with CBS and others fall by the wayside.
 
Google faces even more than a threat of of copyright lawsuits:  It faces competition.  YouTube's most popular content isn't home grown videos but clips of TV shows.  As other meida giants follow Viacom's lead and strike deals with other sites, YouTube's share of eyeballs will fall.  
 
Like iTunes, these rivals will share their sales with the studio moguls.  And Google will push TV producers right into the open arms of the competition.  You can't run with the big dogs if you aren't one yourself.
 
Carmine D.

Quote from Carmine_Difazio on 02/03/07 at 2:41pm:

 
It's official, VIACOM is suing YouTube (Google) for $ ONE BILLION.  
 
Carmine D.