作业帮谁能完美回答 3000+分全送!英语好的进
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/05/05 07:33:28
谁能完美回答 3000+分全送!英语好的进
题目：Google recently purchased You Tube but You Tube contains a substantial amount of illegal content such as television shows. Discuss some of the ethical ramifications of this situation and what should Google do with this illegal content?
800字左右演讲!
回答好的3000+分全送 绝不食言!
题目：Google recently purchased You Tube but You Tube contains a substantial amount of illegal content such as television shows. Discuss some of the ethical ramifications of this situation and what should Google do with this illegal content?
800字左右演讲!
回答好的3000+分全送 绝不食言!
我为你写了一个,不合适的地方您自己修改.
Conventional wisdom holds that,no matter how altruistic a company starts,its growth eventually turns those values inside-out and creates a monster.I would think that YouTube is a good example.YouTube began as a site for people to share the videos they made,and it has since become one of the ten most popular websites in the world; but later it has turned into a place where film,TV and music clips were viewed on a massive scale,creating a big problem for copyright legislators.
Some may accuse that YouTube’s operation is unethical; but YouTube would claim that it is providing the service free of charge with no personal benefits at all,even though the interests of the content owners are definitely affected.So the ramifications are more on the legal aspect rather than ethical.Then,does YouTube actually violate copyright law?Under the present copyright legislation,if YouTube is asked by content providers to take the infringing material down and it doesn't do so within a reasonable period then it can certainly be liable for copyright infringement,otherwise it is primarily the user who uploads the material who will be liable.So You Tube is entirely operating legally within the laws.As a matter of fact,the inclusion of copyrighted video material in consumer-generated videos on a commercial web site such as YouTube is still in its infancy,therefore,the ethical,legal and public relations ramifications are still untested.
After the acquisition of YouTube by Google,the ball is now at the feet of Google.What should Google do to all these copyright-related video materials?A lot of people are doubtful that Google can actually handle this Herculean task,that’s why critics are mostly pessimistic about the outcome of the purchase with all these copyright issues dangling about,they think that Google is crazy to buy YouTube due to all these questions of legal liability.
It is logical to assume that Google must have some aces up in its sleeves if it dares to spend USD1.6 billion on the purchase of YouTube with so much potential for copyright violation lawsuits,but since this is out of context with the topic here,I shall not elaborate on this.So,I think what Google will do first is to make full use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by the U.S.Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.According to DMCA Title II,the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"),creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs,including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent.OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users,if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not,in fact,infringing.
In spite of the fact that Google can hide behind these safe harbor laws,the second thing Google should do is to get deals done with the content owners.As a matter of fact,Google has already started copyright negotiations with Time Warner,the media company which owns Warner Bros.,New Line Cinema,HBO and America Online; they are trying to establish a workable model for the use of Time Warner’s content on YouTube.
Of course,Google cannot leave out the music industry.According to news reports,Google has completed deals with the music labels such as EMI and so on,the deals focus on the ad revenue generated from the use of music video content rather than royalty payments—an arrangement that perhaps circumvents the much more complex business of managing copyright compliance on a popular viral site.So Google has managed to sign deals with movie studios,TV producers and record labels licensing the use of their material on the site for a share of ad revenue.These licenses are still opaque though and most believe they will be pretty limited.
Furthermore,ad revenue sharing will work for larger companies such as Time Warner,but smaller content owners and independents may not be interested in Google’s ad sharing and may prefer having their royalties paid.This can only be done on a case to case basis,and obviously,it would be impossible to arrange deals with all the content owners.This will pose another huge problem to Google because YouTube is serving visitors videos 100 million times a day and that its users upload more than 65,000 videos daily,and when they start distilling content for stuff for which they can’t arrange deals,their eyeball count is going to drop off.
Conventional wisdom holds that,no matter how altruistic a company starts,its growth eventually turns those values inside-out and creates a monster.I would think that YouTube is a good example.YouTube began as a site for people to share the videos they made,and it has since become one of the ten most popular websites in the world; but later it has turned into a place where film,TV and music clips were viewed on a massive scale,creating a big problem for copyright legislators.
Some may accuse that YouTube’s operation is unethical; but YouTube would claim that it is providing the service free of charge with no personal benefits at all,even though the interests of the content owners are definitely affected.So the ramifications are more on the legal aspect rather than ethical.Then,does YouTube actually violate copyright law?Under the present copyright legislation,if YouTube is asked by content providers to take the infringing material down and it doesn't do so within a reasonable period then it can certainly be liable for copyright infringement,otherwise it is primarily the user who uploads the material who will be liable.So You Tube is entirely operating legally within the laws.As a matter of fact,the inclusion of copyrighted video material in consumer-generated videos on a commercial web site such as YouTube is still in its infancy,therefore,the ethical,legal and public relations ramifications are still untested.
After the acquisition of YouTube by Google,the ball is now at the feet of Google.What should Google do to all these copyright-related video materials?A lot of people are doubtful that Google can actually handle this Herculean task,that’s why critics are mostly pessimistic about the outcome of the purchase with all these copyright issues dangling about,they think that Google is crazy to buy YouTube due to all these questions of legal liability.
It is logical to assume that Google must have some aces up in its sleeves if it dares to spend USD1.6 billion on the purchase of YouTube with so much potential for copyright violation lawsuits,but since this is out of context with the topic here,I shall not elaborate on this.So,I think what Google will do first is to make full use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by the U.S.Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.According to DMCA Title II,the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"),creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs,including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent.OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users,if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not,in fact,infringing.
In spite of the fact that Google can hide behind these safe harbor laws,the second thing Google should do is to get deals done with the content owners.As a matter of fact,Google has already started copyright negotiations with Time Warner,the media company which owns Warner Bros.,New Line Cinema,HBO and America Online; they are trying to establish a workable model for the use of Time Warner’s content on YouTube.
Of course,Google cannot leave out the music industry.According to news reports,Google has completed deals with the music labels such as EMI and so on,the deals focus on the ad revenue generated from the use of music video content rather than royalty payments—an arrangement that perhaps circumvents the much more complex business of managing copyright compliance on a popular viral site.So Google has managed to sign deals with movie studios,TV producers and record labels licensing the use of their material on the site for a share of ad revenue.These licenses are still opaque though and most believe they will be pretty limited.
Furthermore,ad revenue sharing will work for larger companies such as Time Warner,but smaller content owners and independents may not be interested in Google’s ad sharing and may prefer having their royalties paid.This can only be done on a case to case basis,and obviously,it would be impossible to arrange deals with all the content owners.This will pose another huge problem to Google because YouTube is serving visitors videos 100 million times a day and that its users upload more than 65,000 videos daily,and when they start distilling content for stuff for which they can’t arrange deals,their eyeball count is going to drop off.