Google: Copyright Lawsuits?

Article: YouTube's New Deep Pockets

This article is from BusinessWeek Online and discusses Google's new acquisition. Google has recently purchased YouTube for a whooping $1.65 billion in stock. YouTube is a growing website which allows users and member to exchange and view online videos. According to the author of the article, Catherine Holahan, YouTube has become one of the most visited web sites on the Web in a small timeframe of a year and a half. Google executives viewed this opportunity as a way to become more diversified and a "global media powerhouse".


The biggest concern for Google is copyright infringement lawsuits. The biggest lawsuits would come from media companies. The big deal is instead of YouTube being a privately owned company it is now owned by a huge moneymaking machine, Google. So YouTube decided to deal with these types of problems before the announcement of the buyout. The "YouTube executives said they had struck content deals with CBS, Universal Music Group, and Sony BMG." This allows YouTube to circulate approved copyrighted material from its partners. The price of these deals is a share of the advertising revenue.

This leads to the question, "How will YouTube and Google handle copyrighted material in the future?". One of YouTube's policies is that the company will remove copyrighted clips once they are alerted about their existence. Not only that, but the company has also established a 10 minute limit to videos. This is in hopes to prevent users from uploading entire television episodes and movies onto YouTube. Currently, YouTube is in the process of trying to implement technology, which would allow the company to "fingerprint" and block copyrighted material so it never makes it online.

Unfortunately for Google, the threat of copyright lawsuits will always remain. The challenge for Google will be to balance its threats (lawsuits) with its opportunities (estimated advertising income). Taking too many precaution, rules, and delays in uploading content for users could potentially cause YouTube's current audience to lose appeal. After all, freedom to exchange videos and content is why YouTube has become so successful and attract the millions of users it currently holds.

Online Gambling: Legal?

The article: Despite Crackdown, Online Gamblers Aren't Ready to Fold

The Wall Street Journal posted this article on October 3, 2006. The article addresses online gambling in the United States and whether or not it will remain legal.

According to the article, Congress passed ports legislation in the end of September which included a provision that would forbid Internet casino companies from accepting US financial transactions. In other words, US banks and credit card companies could no longer process payments meant for online gambling.

Currently the United States accounts for 76% of the revenue for the world's biggest online-gambling company, PartyGaming. Other online-gambling companies, which would suffer a loss if the act were signed, are 888 Holdings (which the US generates about half of their revenue) and Sportingbet, both based out of the U.K.

But can this piece of legislation really stop online gambling? According to industry experts the US cannot stop online gambling completely. One of the reasons is due to the private companies who use intermediaries such as Neteller.com. These intermediaries are the companies which transfer money from a bank account to online for a fee. Though this may put a temporary halt to the existing intermediary companies more are likely to spring up in order to compensate and gain market share.

For some gamblers this is means that their leisure activity has been put to rest or is now regulated. For others, they cannotfathomm the thought of online gambling being illegal considering they make their living off of online gambling.
For me, regulating instead of banning online gambling seems more feasible. Instead of imposing compliance costs on financial institutions and banks, it seems it would be more cost effective to place regulations on the process or on the amount of US transactions flowing to foreign online gambling companies.

Security Breaches on the Internet

The article, "Surging Losses, but Few Victims in Data Breaches," discusses the latest hysteria on the internet, stolen identities. One of the most prominent cases was that of ChoicePoint in February 2005. After the scare of 150,000 consumers personal information being in the wrong hands, internet security has been a hot and a touchy topic.

The author believes there has not been an increase in personal information being stolen, but more attention has been focused and added when there are security breaches. More recently, 32 states have passed legislature "requiring companies to notify consumers when personal data has been lost or stolen." The most common form of data loss, according to surveys, is lost or stolen wallets, checkbooks, and credit cards. However, when there are data losses on the internet or stolen from companies, the media attention sparks the outcry from the public.

The correlation between stolen personal information and identity theft has been miniscule comparatively, says Chris Thom, the chief risk officer for MasterCard. Instead, credit card fraud has been the most common crime versus data information that was lost or stolen. Major credit card companies, such as VISA, MasterCard, and American Express, have responded to customers concerns by offering zero liability policies. Not to mention that the credit card companies technology is improving just as thefts become more savvy.

The future of the Internet, as we know, will continue to grow. More business and transactions will be conducted online which means there will need to be higher levels of security in place. As more commerce moves to the Internet, this means more headaches and ominous security problems are to come. The ideal scenario would be for companies and the government to develop countermeasures and law enforcement in order to protect the average Internet user going on with their day-to-day lives.

The Price of Security

The author of the article, “It’s easy to Complain about Web Privacy, a lot Harder to Act,” took the time to ensure his privacy was protected while surfing the internet for one week. He, David Kesmodel, used a program designed to allow an internet user to “fly below the radar”. The Anonymous Surfing program disguises his identity by cloaking his computer’s Internet Protocol Address. An IP address, according to Wikipedia, is a unique number that devices use in order to identify each other on a computer network. He describes the process as the program prevents web sites from seeing you IP address by “routing your traffic through other IP addresses”. So what are the consequences of the added security and privacy?
As we all know, everything in life has a tradeoff. When using the program, Kesmodel noticed some differences caused by Anonymous Surfing. He found web pages took longer to load and some sites gave him error messages. Without cookies on his computer, web sites cannot provide products and services that would appeal to a customer based on previous searches.
This article leads to the question for internet users…..How much is web privacy worth? To some waiting the extra time for web pages to load is better than the chance of jeopardizing their right to privacy. For me and others alike, the extra work just doesn’t out weigh keeping things how they are. I agree with the author that we like convenience. Having to retype usernames, website addresses, and information is more trouble than it’s worth. The means just don’t justify the end.

Facebook's Response to Member backlash

The article, Facebook Learns from It’s Fumble, ” has provided an update to college and high school students around the US regarding the recent Facebook “News Feed” feature. This added feature on September 5, 2006 caused a loud backlash from the social site’s members. Members spoke to the sites founder, Mark Zuckerberg, through feedback and a circulating petition, “Students Against Facebook News Feed.” One state even began to plan a one day boycott to make their voices heard. The biggest issue with existing members was privacy, or lack there of. The “News Feed and Mini-Feed” features invaded privacy by revealing too much information to others was the initial response. Zuckerberg’s response to the uproar is the feature was implemented to centralize existing information to one location.

Facebook since then has been working around the clock to update privacy protections. They listened to what the members wanted. Privacy settings have been put into place which allows a user to choose what items will be included in the “News Feeds”. However, the site has announced that they will not be pulling the newly adapted features. Instead, the site responds, “These are fundamental features in the next evolution of Facebook.” However, the whole experience was not done in vain. Facebook will now be sure to provide more information and testing before it decides to roll out new features.


What is the future of Facebook? Currently, Facebook is beginning to face more competition in the online community web space. Besides the big rival, MySpace.com, more web communities are popping up to offer a level of privacy for members such as CollegeHotList.com. This rival has gained momentum since the Facebook controversy showed itself. Will Facebook continue to provide members the level of privacy and convenience users want or will it be slowly diminished by rivals? Only time will be able to tell.

Article 1: Web Social Site Facebook Hit by Privacy Protests

The New York Times recently published the article "Web Social Site Facebook Hit by Privacy Protests." Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook, an online social community, in 2004. Since then, Facebook has grown and become a trend among colleges and recently to high school students. It differs from its competitor, MySpace.com because it restricts membership to certain groups, particularly college students with an .edu email address.

The article discusses a recent privacy issue members are having with an introduced feature. The feature is called a "news feed". It immediately notifies a user's friends when he or she has updated their site. This initially does not seem to be an outrageous idea, but to some members it is a privacy issue. One argument by students is that it seems to allow other to "stalk" a member of the community. The article mentions recent events with privacy issues, particularly credit card theft, which may be contributing to heightened security concern. Zuckerberg explains in his blog post that the new feature is not to allow others to stalk you, but rather to allow a friend to know what is going on in your lives.

Facebook continues to grow, allowing more members other than college students to join including high school students, some major companies, non-profit groups, and member of the military. The nature of the web site is more private than myspace.com. I believe that the feature is an added bonus for some and is simply a way to know what is going on in a friend's life. On the other hand, this new feature can be annoying and seem to reveal too much information. The question is at what point does this feature cross the line of revealing too much information. This feature has its advantages but can also be used inappropriately by some, but hopefully not by your facebook friends!

Introduction to Legal and Privacy Issues

This blog was created for my fall semester class BUAD477: Information Technology Applications in Marketing. Through the next few months, articles will be posted discussing legal and privacy issues on the internet. The purpose of this blog is to inform you, the reader, of these issues.