So I’ve been debating in my mind the whole lawsuit between Viacom and Google wondering who has the best interest of all involved; ie the public, copyright holders etc. If you read a lot of the online comments and forums surrounding this discussion you’ll find that a majority favors Google and want content to be literally “free” for everyone. In a way I can understand that train of thought because after all we’ve all been taught to believe that “if it’s on the internet, it’s free”.
Many people argue that Viacom is shooting itself on the foot because having their content on YouTube is free publicity. They could get more people subscribing to their shows by having these clips available on the web. The same argument has been made about music and music industry. But what if the person who owns the rights on a particular video (or music) doesn’t want to put his/her up for free? Sure maybe it’s not a smart marketing strategy, but let say they have personal reasons for this. Why should they be forced to have their product shown or listened to on the web?
