1. What might you have done differently if you were in the position of artist Ken Zeran, mentioned in this chapter?


Last year I wrote a paper regarding the Youtube/Google vs Viacom on ongoing battles. Viacom was claiming that Youtube, owned by Google, was breaching copyright law by allowing members to post video content from Viacom's various channels - like MTV. 


In this case, the copyright law states that as long as the host ,Youtube, did not filter and turned a blind eye to what was being posted, its fair game. But, if Viacom tells YouTube that their stuff is being posted, then YuTube has t take it down. Youtube has been complying and often wins the court battles. The major problem with this, however, are the ads sold on over the videos. For instance, there is a music artist I really like named Ronald Jenkees -goofiest dude ever but he can make a sweet beat. He plays on a Yamaha Korg Triton Keyboard - very expensive. The ad over top of the video was for a the same keyboard. Viacom uses videos like this to prove that YouTube does in fact know what's being posted and that they are making a profit from it! This is still very grey and the decisions vary on the day. 


If I were Zeran, I would use the defense that AOL was conscious of what was being posted, not inherently but once he pointed out them that is was being done that should have been evidence enough that AOL knew of the posting. If that didn't work, I might have called in and pretended that I did own the ad and decided that it wasn't generating enough business, so I'd like to swap it out with another. 


Tylenol once was not the most trusted brand - a disgruntled employee sabotaged the company by poisoning thousands of bottles of product. People died. Tylenol took the blame and recovered their image. The disgruntled employee was never caught. Could Zeran not have attempted to sue the individual promising to take down the ad on the premise that they were perhaps disgruntled and enjoyed seeing him defamed?