Forum Moderators: martinibuster
i wonder how they can get away with it.
Nevertheless Google bought a sevice they knew breaks copyright law on a scale never seen before, besides Wikipedia, which they love too as we all see in the index.
The main economic problem is, that if broadcasting copyrighted content is so easy, why would anybody in the future actually produce content. What will remain are public funded bodies like the BBC that don't earn money commercially. It leads to content inflation and forces everybody to either employ the sametechnique or be damned on the long run.
Since Google bought Youtube, fully knowing the implications, I find claims of "we will protect content" rather bizarre. Additionally it does not support professional writers, that produce contentthe long nd hard way, as each of them is offset with thousands either publishing their content somewhere for free or by hobby sites. It's all short term advantages.
It's not technically illegal, but shows either economic stupidity or carelessness or intention, as Google is pretty much on top of the pyramid. What will remain on the long run is a web full of hoobyists web sites of people that can afford by offline money to write content for free, leaving any serious content writers pretty much in the swamp as mortgages, electricity and so on aren't yet free for all, making this pseudo socialist, everything is free mentality essentially a call to arms for everybody to do the same.
I recently tried to get rights for a classical music piece, until I get that probably 6 have published it illegally. So the choice is to go for a free music piece to add to this downward spiral of all is free mentality.
The annoying bit is that Google expects some economical singularity according to their Webspam team, while fighting against hard worked content on nearly every other corner.
