SoundGreen

So… long time no talk?!?

I have:

1. Moved to St Louis
   
2. Continued to work with great programmers
   
3. Talked on and off with Laura, owner of PlaybackSTL
   
4. Begun a new job, second job to this… but it pays the bills
   
5. Got married to a fabulous woman

Back to a little thing called copyrights… What the hell is Google talking about??? They are breaking the Supreme Court decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster. Like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM saying Grokster was not protected under Sony v Universal Studios (which allowed Sony to continue to produce Betamax). Side note, Betamax
was not the ultimate winner (JVC was with VCR). Grokster was
making a profit from advertising while allowing free access to pirated
intellectual property (songs, movies, et cetera).

So… what is different now? I’ll tell you… Google paid $1.65 Billion for YouTube and needs to make their money back on adwords and other annoying ads that pop-up all over YouTube. (really they didn’t pay, they diluted their company to acquire YouTube,
but that is a separate topic all together)

Sour grapes? No! Google has more money and better attorneys (or at least they can hire better attorneys) than any property rights holder who sues them. This is why so many have “reached deals” with Google.

Bottom line: YouTube is a powerful new media for dissemination of videos, which if harnessed properly can lead to future or increased profits for artists. As long as there are AdWords or other revenues being generated through YouTube, Google is in direct violation of US law. They purchased YouTube with the intent to break the law.

Just a few thoughts to charge the blog back up. The author does realize Blogger is owned by Google, and doesn't care.