We ask the curators, like Bobbie, to take a strong position in their Weekly Updates, based on their experience and expertise in the spaces they cover. The idea is to provide food for thought and a space for discussion.

Personally, I agree more with Paul Sweeting on this particular topic — I think the Viacom case is just not that significant anymore. (You can read his here: http://pro.gigaom.com/2010/03/viacom-v-youtube-all-over-but-the-shouting/) On the other hand, Bobbie makes a good point that legal actions like this one could have a sort of “chillling” effect on the startups in the ecosystem — perhaps regardless of their outcomes. )

What are some other things you would have liked to know about this particular topic?

Sorry you felt it didn’t add anything, but I was trying to raise a talking point – one which I think you are engaging with (just a little) even if you don’t realise. It’s about the potential for cases like this to undermine *any* chance of building a sustainable business.

If rules on safe harbor are altered or changed because of the Viacom case, what difference does that make to web entrepreneurs? What difference does it make to content creators? And to users?

The underlying point was mean to show how one case – whether it has merit or not – can alter the trajectory for hundreds (or thousands) of companies. Will it alter yours?

You can’t have innovation without a sustainable business model.

It seems like these questions have a very distinct editorial point of view. Maybe you’re just trying to be provocative?

I’d prefer you just gave me some great insights, rather than some kind of a ‘pre-thunk’ point of view that I can agree or disagree with.

Please see “Breaking Views” for an excellent example of what I’m looking for from GigaOm.