Blog Post

Weekend Poll: What Will You Do If YouTube Loses The Viacom Lawsuit?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

When we posted this week about the YouTube (s GOOG) creators who had banded together to file an amicus brief in support of YouTube in its current legal battle with Viacom (s VIA), our comments section was flooded with messages backing up the creators and YouTube itself. “YouTube has changed my life” was a common theme.

But let’s think worst-case scenario — especially given that Viacom has its supporters as well — for today’s weekend poll. Key to the argument being made by the “Sideshow Coalition” is that YouTube’s success — and its positive impact on its users — is due primarily to the fact that it is not accountable for what its users upload. If that were to change, YouTube would undoubtedly place tighter restrictions on its content. So here’s what we want to know: What would you do if YouTube were to lose the Viacom suit and was forced to change how it operated?

[polldaddy poll=3301701]

Feel free to expand on your answer in the comments!

Related GigaOm Pro Content (subscription required): Why Viacom’s Fight With YouTube Threatens Web Innovation (subscription required)

4 Responses to “Weekend Poll: What Will You Do If YouTube Loses The Viacom Lawsuit?”

  1. Others besides those who are members of the Sideshow Coalition have found that there is a conflict between individuals who create content and gatekeepers. The popular recording group OK Go encountered this conflict. OK Go was formed in 1998, and went the traditional route of releasing studio albums, beginning in 2002. Beginning in 2005, the band’s popularity was substantially helped by clever, choreographed videos. The band’s second album, Oh No, had a huge hit, ―A Million Ways, thanks to a hilarious video of the song, a video that
    the group shot itself for $5 in a backyard.

  2. Hi,

    Youtube wasn’t the first video-sharing site, and it won’t be the last.

    If it changed it’s model, it likely would become a digg for video with original video sourced at first instead from the less legitimate video-hosters or use the Apple Apps-approval process.

    However, considering their are already services such as Blip, revision3 and Next New Networks, then those are the places where originators would go with discovery coming from social networks and bitly.

    Essentially, nothing would change, except t would cost Google more, teh quality would improve and they’d be less of a grip of the web-video industry to then enable a wider plurality of more-equally distributed web video-sharing sites.

    Yours kindly,

    Shakir Razak

  3. The notion that Youtube is a safe harbor is central to the functioning of Youtube. This becomes complicated when the site owner places advertising on the videos and next to the videos.

    Perhaps the central problem is not Youtube but the very notion and intent of copyright laws in the first place. Unlike “real property” they are a creation of government and we all know that government has fallen victim to the hands of special interests. Until we fix that fundamental problem it is unlikely that any of the derivative issues can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. As a result the www should not subject itself to the arbitrary rules of nation states whose interests conflict with freedoms created by the www.

    Copyright is always a hard issue. Everyone wants to see the results of creative efforts. Everyone wants them to be commercially viable. However the original laws were intended to help creators obtain a “fair reward” for their efforts. They do not create “absolute ownership” but rather try to create a framework where the creators are able to make a profit. When the such laws are used in a way that defies common sense one has to wonder about their basis and logic. If on the other hand their is clear damage to a “property” then that is certainly something that should be considered.

    It is time to put the W back in www.