February 18, 2007
WEB 2.0
Forget about that first Internet, the one that had all those business websites like Amazon.com and Ebay.com; old news, the both of them. If you have been on top of things and logged-on to the web, you know about the NEW internet. Web 2.0.
Social networking sites are the "IT" thing nowadays, and, if you haven't wiki'd something, you're old news. Let's see. How about "michiwiki" or "U of Mikiwiki," something along those lines. There. That's it. I'm "in." Actually, I'm taking part in the revolution right now, I'm blogging. So pretty much if you are doing what everyone else is doing and you are on the Internet, you are probably taking part in Web 2.0.
One of the most indicitive aspects of a Web 2.0 site is the fact that it is user-guided. It goes hand in hand with OpenSource projects, users are encouraged to use the website and add to it.
Many websites include the following technology:
.... and much more.
Interested in experiencing some of these websites? Then click here to check out some of the most popular Web 2.0 applications!
Posted by kiwesley at 02:43 PM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2007
Viacom sues Google!
An important part of the issue of intellectual property in the internet age has come to a head. Just under a week ago, the media giant Viacom, who owns Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon among others, "slap[ed] Google with $1 billion lawsuit" for displaying its copyrighted content on YouTube, a user populated video site. For more complete details see the following links:
Viacom claims that YouTube has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."
"Viacom said YouTube has avoided taking the initiative to curtail copyright infringement on its site, instead shifting the burden and costs of monitoring the video-sharing site for unauthorized clips onto the 'victims of its infringement.'"
The problem is that because YouTube’s content is user populated, Google has very little control over what is posted. Even when they take copyrighted material down, users repost it. Personally, I don’t believe that you can hold Google accountable for what its users do (according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act "companies are off the hook if they remove copyrighted content promptly when it is brought to their attention."). However, holding users responsible is also problematic (i.e. the RIAA approach). In short, no one wants to be held responsible, but, according to the owners of the copyrighted material, someone must be. Do we make the providers of the services used for illegal purposes, the users who posted illegal material or both groups accountable? Perhaps, in the age of the internet, information belongs to everyone and no one has done anything wrong...
Posted by brackme at 03:24 PM | Comments (0)