Alternative to YouTube

Inspired by the popularity of YouTube, Viacom, CBS corporation, Index Ventures (European venture capital firm), Sequoia Capital (also a venture capital firm), and Li Ka - shing, an influential telecommunications business executive from Hong Kong have all decided to invest in an Internet-based TV service called Joost. Joost received $45 million from these five investors and may be collecting even more. Unlike YouTube, which is the center of controversy for alleged copyright infringement, Joost has already signed contracts with major content providers, including the aforementioned investors. This will allow Joost to show material from MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount and Comedy Central without the concern of copyright infringement or any other legal matters.

I think Joost is a good idea and will be very popular once it is launched. It already beats YouTube since it will have legal material on the site and I think everyone would be more excited to see actual television shows, which is what Joost would be offering, rather than random kids filming themselves acting like idiots and posting it on the Internet, which is what YouTube offers. This service might even curtail the amount of illegal downloading if people can watch some of their favorite shows on Joost instead of trying to download them.

Jobs ignores backdating concerns

Recently, there have been allegations of Jobs backdating stock options. Backdating stock options refers to when companies change the date of a grant in order to accrue more profits. This is not always illegal, and usually when the company is upfront about it to shareholders and the government, it does not present a problem. However, when it is not reported, it could be a sign of less than full disclosure to shareholders, evasion of some taxes, or modified earnings statements (to make the company look like it is doing better financially than it really is. The Securities and Exchange Commission have investigated two of Apple's employees, but cleared both them and the company of any wrongdoing. During a question and answer session, Jobs stated that the disputed October 2001 grants were actually approved in August of that year, two months before they hit their very low prices. 80 other companies are under investigation for the same practice said the SEC last week.

I think backdating stock options seems very sneaky as if the company is trying to hide something. This suspicion is even stronger when you think about how doing such a practice could help you financially, such as avoiding some taxes and attracting more investors that would not invest without a modified earnings statement. Modifying earnings statements is reminiscent of Enron and the scandal in which scores of employees lost their entire life savings. I do not think we should be leaving ourselves open to another crisis like that by allowing backdating.

Google does not have to protect freedom of access to the Internet

Today, Google shareholders rejected a proposal that would require them to not self-censor. This proposal was brought about when Google said that it would remove things that the Chinese government would be likely to interpret as offensive when it is building the search engine site in China. Its defense was that only one percent of the all of the information on the search engine would be removed and that by removing that one percent, it guarantees that it can stay in China. By doing so, can allow citizens of China access to more information and therefore, have more choices available to them.

I agree with Google's decision. If it wants to operate in China, it must observe the rules that China puts in place. So, in order for them to set up operations in China, they must follow these rules that the Chinese government has set, including ones that limit the information that can be accessed online by citizens. This is beneficial for everyone involved - it keeps good communication and repertoire with the Chinese government, citizens of China benefit by having more information and options than they have ever had before, and Google has a much larger customer base. As a business, I definitely think that Google made the right decision and those who disagree with Google's decision probably are not taking into consideration that Google is a business first and needs to look after the interests of its shareholders.

Google wants to reorganize public information

Google is at the center of controversy yet again. However, this time it is not a lawsuit; the company wants to reorganize the way its search engines can access government databases. Google claims that much public information is very difficult to find because government computer systems are not programmed in a way which allows them to be accessed by search engines. They also claim that people cannot find the information they need to and, since most go about finding this type of information by using search engines like Google, Google should be able organize it all. This is due to the fact that when people cannot find information by using a search engine, they blame the engine, not the website of the information they are looking for. However, this would make everyone's information easier for others to find. One scary example of information that can be found about you is your social security number. That is not something you want others to be able to look up online. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said that the best approach to the problem of identity theft is to collect less personal information and increase the security that is guarding it.

I do not think that Google should try to make it easier to find personal information online. There is already such a lack of privacy online with personal websites and social networking sites that Google does not need to do anything extra to make information even more visible. This is especially true when very personal information such as your social security number is potentially going to be put up. With identity theft being the problem that it is, we do not need anything to make it even easier.

youtube lawsuit

YouTube is again being sued for copyright infringement, this time by Football Association Premier League Limited and Bourne Co. The first is a top division of English soccer and the latter is an independent publisher of music. This lawsuit comes after Viacom's "indictment" of YouTube as a for-profit organization that makes money by building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, which is against copyright laws, and not doing anything to protect people's intellectual property. Google counters and accuses Viacom of threatening the Internet by not allowing people to use the Internet to legitimately share information and ideas as it was created to by holding carriers and hosting providers accountable for Internet liability. The actions of Football Association Premier League Limited and Bourne Co. could then be seen as the same thing that Google was accusing Viacom of doing.

I think that Google should be doing more to protect intellectual property on YouTube. It should not be held responsible for what its users do; however, I also think if it does nothing to prevent the users who are misusing the site from posting illegal material, it should be held partially liable. If Google shut down the accounts of those who post illegal materials as well as remove the illegal content, then there would be much less of a problem with copyright infringement. The main reason it would not take these actions is because it would lose money if it did. Therefore, if Google will not do anything to prevent illegal activity on its site because they are profiting, they too should be punished along with those who are posting the material.

Ohio U makes all P2P software illegal

After receiving over 100 notices of prelitigation from the RIAA, Ohio University has decreed that all peer-to-peer file-sharing software is no longer allowed at the university. Staff members spent nearly 120 hours going through all of the letters. Chief Information Officer Bryce Bible says that if peer-to-peer networks are left unchecked, they could consume all of the bandwidth and network resources, which they actually did a few years ago when Napster became widely available. Consequences for using these types of software are disconnection from the Internet until students agree to the acceptable use policy for the first offense and disconnection and referral to University Judiciaries for successive violations.


However, some people use peer-to-peer software for legitimate purposes. Students may buy or rent movies and television shows on BitTorrent, one of the software that is banned from the university now. They could also download Ubuntu, a program for Linux from BitTorrent.

I do not think that Ohio University should ban all peer-to-peer software. Just because some people use them for illegitimate purposes does not mean that no one should be able to use them at all. They should just continue to punish those students who use the programs illegally so that the whole university does not have to pay for those students' crimes.

Utah Legislature v Google

Recently, the Legislature of Utah passed a bill called the Trademark Protection Act. This bill, which will go into effect on June 30, will curb keyword - triggered advertising. For example, if you type in overstock.com into Google's search engine, they give you sponsored links for other competitors of Overstock. According to this new law, Overstock would be able to sue Google for that. This is a very controversial law as would be expected and lawyers for the Legislature said that was "very probable" that the law would be found unconstitutional. Many also think that the state is likely to be sued. Google spokesperson, Adam Kovacevich, says that the law will "hurt consumers, violate free speech, and will be inconsistent with both established U.S. trademark law and our capitalist system." Germany and France have similar laws in place; however, and Google is still able to operate there says Representative David Clark, House sponsor of the law. He also states that the law places his state first for trademark protection without going over the edge.

I do not see the problem with having competitors' links come up when you search for a specific site. Advertisements are everywhere on the internet and usually even when sponsored links do come up, people do not click on them if they were specifically looking for something else. For example say you were driving down the street looking for Stop n Shop in a new neighborhood. If you found it and it is across the street from Shaw's, chances are you are not going to go into Shaw's since you were specifically seeking out Stop n Shop. Now if you think Shaw's is a better store and see that it is there and then choose to go to it instead, it is not because you saw it that you decided to go in, but because you have a preference for that store, which you had before you ever drove by it. Therefore, I think this law is unnecessary and could reduce competition.