NBVegita Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 God !@#$%^&* first music now youtube? I mean cmon. It's not like you're going to go out and buy their product because you can't see it on youtube anymore. I really hope the U.S. fights this.
Aceflyer Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 God !@#$%^&* first music now youtube? I mean cmon. It's not like you're going to go out and buy their product because you can't see it on youtube anymore. I really hope the U.S. fights this. My god. This is rather ridiculous. On the other hand, I'm not so concerned over the alleged privacy violations; it's highly unlikely that Viacom would use any personally identifying information it may obtain in any manner that would noticeably affect the lives of the average YouTube user. If Viacom is foolish enough to intrude on the lives of private YouTube users, there's going to be a truly massive public backlash against Viacom.
Bak Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 i care a lot about the personally identifying information, and hopefully google is allowed to anonymize the data before giving it away.
Aceflyer Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 i care a lot about the information, and hopefully google is allowed to anonymize the data before giving it away. Just out of curiosity, why would you trust Google with personally identifying information more than Viacom? I too agree that it would be best if Google were able to anonymize the logs before handing them over to Viacom. The fewer the people who have access to sensitive information, the more secure that information generally stays.
GameTime Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) I hope they don't find out what I have been watching. P.S. Thanks for the "Pomp!@#$%^&* !@#$%^&*" tag above my post count, but you didn't spell pompous correctly. Here is a link to help you: http://www.dictionary.com sWV9Xb1XT38http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWV9Xb1XT38 Edited July 4, 2008 by GameTime
Dav Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 looks like the music/film industries are making progress with their legal battles. Unfortunately a couple of wins will open the floodgates for the implimentation of the compete loss of net neutrality very quickly. looks like the old business models will not be changing any time soon.
Bak Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 We need to make a topic on net neutrality, cause it's really holding the internet back imo.
Samapico Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 P.S. Thanks for the "Pomp!@#$%^&* !@#$%^&*" tag above my post count, but you didn't spell pompous correctly. Here is a link to help you: http://www.dictionary.comThe Real Picard bought it for you with his points... the only reason I left it there is because he mispelled it, so it makes him look like a fool.You can laugh at him all you want
AstroProdigy Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) It's not about Viacom using it. It's about the US government being legally allowed to look through it and Viacom being allowed to show it without a warrant as the precedent has been set in law recently. I do agree the same thing could happen with Google, but Google is more trustworthy than one of the handful of conglomerates that controls the vast majority of US media and chokes any real questioning of the Bush administration out of existence. I'm just waiting for the young in America who grew up with a free internet gets their act together and forms a voting block that doesn't allow the internet to go the way of television and radio. Edited July 4, 2008 by AstroProdigy
Bak Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 it's not going to go the way of television and radio because it's a different medium altogether. If they decided to take away something from the internet someone would find a way to make money by offering what they took away. The only thing a non-neutral net would do is be able to differentiate quality of service between different programs and different customers. If you're lagging in subspace now you can't do anything about it. Potentially with a non-neutral net you could pay $1 on your ISPs website (or call them up), and they'd give you lower packetloss and better pings for a few hours. Right now if they did this they would be breaking the law. Profit motive only makes things better. You CAN watch public broadcasting on TV without commercials but guess what, it sucks.
AstroProdigy Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 They can use browsers, internet providers, and logs to basically determine who goes online, see what they're doing, and control what they search for. Technology is moving at a rapid pace which makes future regulation very difficult, but all that depends on the technology progressing rapidly forever. If it stops or slows down significantly enough it will be controlled.
Hoch Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 It's not about Viacom using it. It's about the US government being legally allowed to look through it and Viacom being allowed to show it without a warrant as the precedent has been set in law recently.Why would they need a warrant when the matter concernsissues of copyright violations? -Hoch
AstroProdigy Posted July 6, 2008 Report Posted July 6, 2008 Now that I think about it youtube is meant to be shared publicly so you can just do a public search. My bad.
Recommended Posts