谁能完美回答 3000+分全送!!!!!英语好的进
发布网友
发布时间：2022-04-22 09:57
共5个回答
热心网友
时间：2023-10-31 10:29
我为你写了一个，不合适的地方您自己修改。
Conventional wisdom holds that, no matter how altruistic a company starts, its growth eventually turns those values inside-out and creates a monster. I would think that * is a good example. * began as a site for people to share the videos they made, and it has since become one of the ten most popular websites in the world; but later it has turned into a place where film, TV and music clips were viewed on a massive scale, creating a big problem for copyright legislators.
Some may accuse that *’s operation is unethical; but * would claim that it is providing the service free of charge with no personal benefits at all, even though the interests of the content owners are definitely affected. So the ramifications are more on the legal aspect rather than ethical. Then, does * actually violate copyright law? Under the present copyright legislation, if * is asked by content providers to take the infringing material down and it doesn't do so within a reasonable period then it can certainly be liable for copyright infringement, otherwise it is primarily the user who uploads the material who will be liable. So You Tube is entirely operating legally within the laws. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of copyrighted video material in consumer-generated videos on a commercial web site such as * is still in its infancy, therefore, the ethical, legal and public relations ramifications are still untested.
After the acquisition of * by Google, the ball is now at the feet of Google. What should Google do to all these copyright-related video materials? A lot of people are doubtful that Google can actually handle this Herculean task, that’s why critics are mostly pessimistic about the outcome of the purchase with all these copyright issues dangling about, they think that Google is crazy to buy * e to all these questions of legal liability.
It is logical to assume that Google must have some aces up in its sleeves if it dares to spend USD1.6 billion on the purchase of * with so much potential for copyright violation lawsuits, but since this is out of context with the topic here, I shall not elaborate on this. So, I think what Google will do first is to make full use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998. According to DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing.
In spite of the fact that Google can hide behind these safe harbor laws, the second thing Google should do is to get deals done with the content owners. As a matter of fact, Google has already started copyright negotiations with Time Warner, the media company which owns Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, HBO and America Online; they are trying to establish a workable model for the use of Time Warner’s content on *.
Of course, Google cannot leave out the music instry. According to news reports, Google has completed deals with the music labels such as EMI and so on, the deals focus on the ad revenue generated from the use of music video content rather than royalty payments—an arrangement that perhaps circumvents the much more complex business of managing copyright compliance on a popular viral site. So Google has managed to sign deals with movie studios, TV procers and record labels licensing the use of their material on the site for a share of ad revenue. These licenses are still opaque though and most believe they will be pretty limited.
Furthermore, ad revenue sharing will work for larger companies such as Time Warner, but smaller content owners and independents may not be interested in Google’s ad sharing and may prefer having their royalties paid. This can only be done on a case to case basis, and obviously, it would be impossible to arrange deals with all the content owners. This will pose another huge problem to Google because * is serving visitors videos 100 million times a day and that its users upload more than 65,000 videos daily, and when they start distilling content for stuff for which they can’t arrange deals, their eyeball count is going to drop off.
热心网友
时间：2023-10-31 10:30
这答案可以吗
Do you remember the good ol' days of *? Back when a private company owned it and you could post and view whatever you wanted up there and no one would say a word because, well, it was practically bankrupt and copyright owners knew they wouldn't get anything out of a lawsuit? Those were the days, weren't they?
Now, after a $1.65 billion buyout by Google, * is not only a veritable junkyard for all the crap we didn't watch a couple years ago, but a bloated mess that costs too much to operate, has a huge lawyer target on it, and barely incurs revenue.
And to make matters worse, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has no idea what to do about it.
Speaking to The New Yorker, Schmidt said that it "seemed obvious" that Google should be able to generate "significant amounts of money" from *, but so far, it has no idea what to do.
"The goal for * is to build a tremendous community....In the case of * we might be wrong," he said. "We have enough leverage that we have the leverage of time. We can invest for scale and not have to make money right now, he said. Hopefully our system and judgment is good enough if something is not going to pay out, we can change it."
But is changing it really the best idea? Since Google acquired *, the company has tried desperately to make something, anything, from its $1.65 billion investment, but so far, it has failed miserably. Of course, it thinks that 'pre- and post-roll' advertisements may work, but the company isn't too sure.
And therein lies the rub. If Google is unsure of how it can turn a profit on * and it still has no idea if it will be able to get a return on its investment, why shouldn't it cut its losses and do something drastically different?
Now I know that you're probably thinking that I've lost it and my editor overlords will finally put me out to pasture, but think about it for a minute: why should a company that overpaid for a service continue to mp significant amounts of cash into it (not to mention spend millions on copyright lawsuits) if it has no chance of creating a valuable revenue stream?
Obviously Schmidt is doing all he can to allay shareholder fears over the * debacle, but the very fact that he said anything about it is telling. And to make matters worse, Google's ad revenue on * is so low, it's not even material to the financial statements. In other words, if Google is making anything with *, it doesn't even matter.
Let's face it -- the * acquisition was a major blunder and regardless of how successful the company is in other areas, there's no reason to suggest advertisers are willing and ready to place ads on videos of 18-year olds shooting milk out their nose or 80-year old men mooning a parade.
As far as I can tell, much of the online advertising money is going to sites like Hulu where the content is controlled, the shows are regulated, and the demographics of the audience are easily obtained.
How does * and its content compare? The audience is huge, but it's filled with a diverse set of people who generally view a select few of the more popular videos; the videos are barely regulated; and the content isn't controlled in the least. Why should any advertiser want to send cash to a service like that?
Now I understand that Google wants to be a major part of the boom in online video advertising and I can't blame the company for it. But doesn't it understand the average company that's trying to make people want a given proct? It's as if Google believes that sheer popularity is the only factor that advertisers use before they start throwing cash around.
But what about perception or target audience? Did Google forget about hitting the right market segment or putting ads in the right place at the right time?
Now, I should note that this doesn't mean that * won't find itself advertisers. Certainly there are companies that would be more than happy to spend money on *, but what kind exactly? Will * become the mp of advertising where strip clubs and brothels will advertise on sexually-oriented videos and unknown politicians will sell themselves on left- or right-leaning clips? I certainly don't see Johnson and Johnson sending ad dollars to * anytime soon.
Lost amid the shuffle, though, is the question of ad dollars itself. How does Google monetize * on videos that you create? Sure, it figured out the online business, but video is a totally different game entirely and without creative control over the content, ads may be found on videos that could leave a bad taste in Google's mouth and yours.
Beyond that, * costs Google millions each month and I'm just not sure how long the company really wants to maintain that loss until it follows a new course.
Killing * would obviously be the last resort and I think there are a few options Google has before it's forced to pull the plug. But if it can't find a way to regulate some of the content that will host ads and it doesn't attract high-paying advertisers, it's sitting on a billion dollar mistake that keeps draining cash from its coffers with each passing day.
* was the greatest blunder Goolge has ever committed and it better act quickly if it wants to turn it around. But if it can't right the ship over the next few years and advertisers start spending more cash elsewhere, * will be nothing but a repository for people to upload crappy videos that have no commercial viability. And for Google, that's unacceptable.
Google is trying to run a business that is responsible to shareholders. And while it may have the cash to keep one of the world's most popular sites running now, popularity of a website, in and of itself, should not justify its operation. If the company is losing millions each quarter, I simply don't see why it should keep it up.
It may sound ludicrous to shut down such a popular site, but we're entering a new generation of entertainment in the online space and pageviews don't always mean success any longer. Especially if a company is spending millions just trying to keep a website alive.
I would love to see * survive, but business is business, and if Google can't turn things around, I simply don't see any other option for Schmidt and company
热心网友
时间：2023-10-31 10:30
哈哈~这还不简单吗? Tube contains a substantial amount of illegal content such as television shows
从这句话可以发展出很多东西.要知道有些东西放上去是违法的.我觉得从这点出发的话然后在说说解决方法就很容易写了
热心网友
时间：2023-10-31 10:31
最近Google 要收购 *。但是 * 包含很多的不合法的内容，像电视里的表演。对于这种情况的道德性的讨论上，Google 会怎么处理哪些不合法的内容呢？
热心网友
时间：2023-10-31 10:31
google最近购入了YOU TUBE，但YT里含有大量的譬如电视类不合格节目，在这些伦理道德上的分歧状况来说，google该怎么处理这些不合格内容？？
