Copyright should be protected. However, it should be protected in the manner to promote creating activity not to hinder it. In view of the principle, should Google be liable? If not, should the users be liable? Is Viacom going too much to undermine developments?
We cannot deny the fact that the hosting providers like Youtube has been contributing for development of communication technology as well as creating activity. However, I believe that a big portion of the contents in Youtube would be from old media providers which are copyrighted. Are those different from “time shifting” which were allowed by Sony case? Is that so because the content is used by many people and deprive copyright-holders of chances to make profits? Then who takes the profits instead? Users are not interested in the benefits. That’s Google. In that sense, Google has been a free rider on the user’s contents to make money. Google is trying to hide behind DMCA Safe Harbor. However, I believe that it is for a good faith website owner not for Google who knew clearly that users would upload contents against copyrights.
Then, should we give up benefits of internet for free communication and Sharing information and expression? I think that Google has to pay for the way they make money and provide legitimate way for the users to share contents. As Google said, to achieve balance the rights of copyright-holders and the need to protect the internet as important new form of communication, Google has to give proper reward to copyright-holders. However, copyright-holders and old media providers cannot seek the traditional protection by prohibiting all the use of their contents. Recent development of communications does not allow it anymore. They will have to find a way to compete by providing better communication service. It will broaden the access for users to the contents and promote more creating activity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment