Viacom Sues Google for $1 Billion, Cites Copyright Infringement

"i think the jury's still out on that one. for a company to have amassed as much personal information data as 100 CIA's, i don't think that their business practises really benefit anyone."

Another issue is that most typo-squatting websites have ads placed by Google. It's probably easy for Google to identify these sites, but, as usual, google probably chooses to do nothing about it unless they receive complaints from the original website owners.

"Do you know anything about the music business?"

Yes, in fact, I do know a little bit about the music industry. There is a difference between the hip-hop artist offering his songs for free and albums being put up for free downloads without the artist's permission. Similarly, it's okay for someone to post a video that he has shot on YouTube. It's not okay to put material from Comedy Central without Viacom's permission. In any case, it's Viacom's decision, not Google's.

It seems to me that you're simply using the anti-RIAA sentiments to justify online music piracy.

@shark

"And anyway, if copyrighted material available on Google's servers without permission, I think it's Google's responsibility to clean it up, instead of coming up with silly excuses."

Silly excuses? Are you kidding me? I suppose you do not realize they remove this content as fast as it is reported. Until more advanced algorithms for scanning submitted videos are, developed Viacom is just going to have to deal with the process as it stands currently.

"You know what? Songs downloaded through p2p networks only increase an artist's popularity, but does the artist get any money out of it? No! "

Do you know anything about the music business? Most artists revenues per unit vary depending on their contract but for the most part the record companies get the majority share unless you are a big star who can pull your weight around. How does this help the artist at all? Oh that's right, they have to do relentless touring, some bands touring 18-24 months at a time to break even and profit since album sales alone don't justify being a full time musician for most artists.

In addition, you want an example of piracy working. Here is a story about a hip-hop artist "Tech N9ne" who offered his album free on his website, doubling his sales and ultimately bringing him to the spotlight in the independent hip-hop world. He has since gone on to sell 600,000+ units. (Here is a link to prove that statistic, http://tinyurl.com/2qfbmc )

Here is the article talking about offering his album:
http://tinyurl.com/349pvg

"Google is evil"

Then stay evil because my stock value is looking lovely regardless if it goes up or down $20 or so.

"Google is...arrogant."

That is true. Very, very true."

Microsoft, Apple, and every bigwig tech company in American market are not? Pointing this out is a useless statement.

"Google is....arrogant."

that's true. very, very true.

"Google is not evil"

i think the jury's still out on that one. for a company to have amassed as much personal information data as 100 CIA's, i don't think that their business practises really benefit anyone.

"What are we basing that on? Conjecture or actual statistics."

likely it came from a Google-sponsored compilation of data from previous studies. ;)

XP

"Boosting popularity/exposure only helps Viacom if people actually tune in to Comedy Central, ......."

Exactly!

Paul is wrong, by the way. Google is not evil, it's arrogant. It's the kind of arrogance that comes from making a lot of money in a short period of time.