Viacom v .Google (2)

This case in my opinion is the continuation of the turf warfare on the ,essence of intellectual property rights,in this case copyright.The supreme court and the United States Constitution have emphasize the incentive theory in justifying intellectual property .See U.S. Const.art.1 cl 8.The same Supreme Court has also directed us to be mindful of the extent to which a use of a copyrighted work promotes the purposes of copyright and serves the interest of the public.See cases from Campbell,Sony,Grokster and Harper & Row.The high court in all these cases has emphasised the public interest use of copyrighted works aka fair use.D.M.C.A especially S.512 and other relevant sections were also promulgated for "democratisation" of digital medium viz a viz copyright issues.

So if Google is taking advantage of this privileges granted by laws and the court,why cry murder Viacom?The answer may be found not in the courts ,where legal precedents on totality seems on Google's side(Using the Rule in Grokster,Sony and Perfect 10) but in congress.The content Industry represented by Viacom would have to come up with a convincing case in congress on why the emphasises of intellectual property should be rewarding the "sweat of the brow,"principally.The Supreme Court in Feist Case annulled this theory.Viacom and its supporter will also have to convince congress has to why intellectual property rights should be used as regulators of market entrants in emerging technologies.What then should become of the constitutional requirement, "To Promote the progress of science and useful Arts"



Looking at the Case in point the product design of Google ,its conducts coupled with the underlining policy of copyright is quite different from Napster,so we are in for a jurisprudential excursion.Meanwhile who does not like youtube except the minority content industry....