There is a recent New York Times article titled "The Old Guard Flexes Its Muscles (While It Still Can)". While the article touches on several topics in the realm of DRM (Digital Rights Management) or more specifically video copyrights, there was one paragraph that stuck.
"Google’s media partner-rivals are also now asking why Google won’t just voluntarily use its technical prowess to ferret out copyrighted material. (After all, they say, the company seems to keep pornography off YouTube rather effectively.) To drive home the point, MySpace trumpeted just such a copyright filtering feature for videos on its popular social networking site last week."
This is a question that Richard Siklos posed in his article. While it is always easy to critique from the outside, it is a question that has undoubtedly crossed most people's minds after Google's purchase of YouTube.
Yet, just last week, MySpace announced that they would be rolling out a video filtering system to prevent copyrighted videos from appearing in their service. The announcement can be read here and here. If Google isn't willing to throw their army of developers at this problem (and granted, it may not make the most business sense to do so), why aren't they at least licensing products from organizations that specialize in filtering copyright material?
Instead, as shown in the PR statements, you see Google trying to convince others of a symbiosis.
(update 2007-2-28: Spotted this article about GoogTube's antipiracy software policies (i.e. only for corps with distribution deals)http://news.com.com/YouTube+antipiracy+software+policy+draws+fire/2100-1030_3-6160405.html)
(In light of all these legal issues and in a small attempt at bringing out many of the positives in video sharing sites (i.e. as a medium of expression, etc), I thought I would link to more light-hearted and original content. It is Web 2.0 as seen and defined by an Assistant Professor at Kansas State University. Enjoy!)