Google vs. Viacom: $1 billion lawsuit aimed at youtube

[HotHotHeat]

Viacom's $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the Web, YouTube parent Google said in a legal response to the suit.

The response, reported by the Associated Press, was filed late Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Google says the threat comes from Viacom's attempt to make sites' hosts liable for what people post. Google, by the way, has said this suit will only be resolved in court

Google, in its response, said YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works." Google added that YouTube has faithfully followed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and responded to claims of infringement.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...g=2547-1_3-0-5

Can anyone see Viacom losing this? Will it ruin youtube as we know it...Or will it just mean Google has to pay royalties?

[dissentowner]

The Safe Harbour Law says Viacom cannot win this without that law being changed. Google should have no problems with this.

[dissentowner]

You can find out here why this will never work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act

If Viacom asked google/youtube to remove said content of their stuff via legal notification then google would be obliged to do so but they cannot be held responsible for individuals uploading copyrighted material.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by fotze

So you are saying Viacom is paying millions and millions to lawyers to launch this suit and you with wikipedia have figured out that they cannot win?

No, Viacom knows they won't win but they have the millions to throw into this because if they can bring a good case then they can set the table to get this law changed, it's all politics with amounts of cash that would be better served elsewhere, like in my account

[mykalberta]

I wouldnt be so sure about Safe Harbour applying.

Youtube wouldnt be economically viable if it wernt for illegal content being posted on its site. If Viacom can prove this then it should be able to negate safe harbour. A dollar figure was essentially put on the worth of the illegal content when google purchased it.

I think the problem is that Viacom shouldnt have to ask, Google should remove it because of infringment automatically. Why should Viacom spend resources going through Youtube searching for illegal content.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think the problem is that Viacom shouldnt have to ask, Google should remove it because of infringment automatically. Why should Viacom spend resources going through Youtube searching for illegal content.

And just how is Google to know the content is owned by Viacom?

ers

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think the problem is that Viacom shouldnt have to ask, Google should remove it because of infringment automatically. Why should Viacom spend resources going through Youtube searching for illegal content.

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was an article about video game copyright) that in order for the copyright to stand, the holders of the copyright have to actively pursue the people who are violating the copyright or it wouldn't hold.

This is just a vague recollection, sorry. I'm probably wrong.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by ericschand

And just how is Google to know the content is owned by Viacom?

ers

Initial reaction would be, not Viacoms problem. Bar owners are held financially responsible in the US if drugs are being dealt in their clubs, same general issue. If you run a buisness, its your responsibility it doesnt break or facilitate in breaking the law. Maybe Youtube should be removing all professionaly produced items and then re add them if the company says its ok.

Of course they wont do that else the invesment in Youtube becomes worthless to google and no one would go to Youtube except to watch the Star Wars kid from Quebec.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by WhiteTom

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was an article about video game copyright) that in order for the copyright to stand, the holders of the copyright have to actively pursue the people who are violating the copyright or it wouldn't hold.

This is just a vague recollection, sorry. I'm probably wrong.

I have also heard that, but does that mean it has to go through every website in the world and search for content?

I woudl think if it gave a list of shows to sites that should suffice. But who knows for sure.

I always wondered why Google married with Youtube. You could see the legal issues coming a mile away, I just figured that Google had some back door deal for some pay content itunes type deal in the works before they purchased it.

Frankly IMO its about time google got knocked off its high horse. They are the king of the leeching buisness.

[MelBridgeman]

So more big conglomerate pissed about not having control anymore.
Give the consumers what they want, you will be better off for it

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Initial reaction would be, not Viacoms problem. Bar owners are held financially responsible in the US if drugs are being dealt in their clubs, same general issue. If you run a buisness, its your responsibility it doesnt break or facilitate in breaking the law. Maybe Youtube should be removing all professionaly produced items and then re add them if the company says its ok.

Of course they wont do that else the invesment in Youtube becomes worthless to google and no one would go to Youtube except to watch the Star Wars kid from Quebec.

Not the same thing. The law clearly states that a server cannot be held responsible if an individual uploads copyrighted material, that is on the individual and Youtube does state in it's user agreement that you are not to do that even though people do. Now if it cost money to join or watch Youtube content they would be in big trouble but technically Youtube/Google have done everything the law requires them to and Viacom really has no case against them.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Initial reaction would be, not Viacoms problem. Bar owners are held financially responsible in the US if drugs are being dealt in their clubs, same general issue. If you run a buisness, its your responsibility it doesnt break or facilitate in breaking the law. Maybe Youtube should be removing all professionaly produced items and then re add them if the company says its ok.

Of course they wont do that else the invesment in Youtube becomes worthless to google and no one would go to Youtube except to watch the Star Wars kid from Quebec.

So, the mark of whether there is copyright then becomes "professionaly produced items then re add them if the company says its ok."

Which company decides it's ok?
Who decides if something is professionally produced? What are the
indicators of a professional production?
Further, copyright does not have to be held by a company. So,
under your proposal, either a company must be asked, or ALL
individuals must be contacted first.

It is Viacom's problem. They should be made to tell youtube, google,
whomever, that they have a copyright violation, and prove it if required.
If they can't prove it, yet had the material removed, then there should
be severe fines.

After all, you could write a comic, movie, or song, you write it, direct it,
produce it, and all they could do is say it's our copyright and it's gone?

ers

[MarchHare]

Youtube wouldnt be economically viable if it wernt for illegal content being posted on its site.

That's going to be awfully difficult to prove. Maybe when YouTube first started the illegal posting of copyrighted works gave them a critical mass of users, but these days almost all the big "YouTube sensations" are original videos posted by users themselves (i.e. the recent South Park episode and Weezer video highlighting this phenomonon).

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Not the same thing. The law clearly states that a server cannot be held responsible if an individual uploads copyrighted material, that is on the individual and Youtube does state in it's user agreement that you are not to do that even though people do. Now if it cost money to join or watch Youtube content they would be in big trouble but technically Youtube/Google have done everything the law requires them to and Viacom really has no case against them.

Doesnt that case law more apply to public non profit servers? I thought one of the case laws in the states had to do with some sort of file sharing network on a Uni computer system. That makes sense because the Uni isnt profiting.

As soon as google monitized Youtube, that changed from public server to private Server. Youtube at any time could prevent uploads from users who arent confirmed and can therefor be prosecuted. When they allow anonymous accounts to be created IMO they are helping to facilitate the activities because its profitable to Youtube but more importantly google which is the one that has the money.

Will be interesting to see the arguments, I hope they wont be closed.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Doesnt that case law more apply to public non profit servers? I thought one of the case laws in the states had to do with some sort of file sharing network on a Uni computer system. That makes sense because the Uni isnt profiting.

As soon as google monitized Youtube, that changed from public server to private Server. Youtube at any time could prevent uploads from users who arent confirmed and can therefor be prosecuted. When they allow anonymous accounts to be created IMO they are helping to facilitate the activities because its profitable to Youtube but more importantly google which is the one that has the money.

Will be interesting to see the arguments, I hope they wont be closed.

How is it profitable to Youtube? They are not charging a membership fee although click on ads to exist.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's going to be awfully difficult to prove. Maybe when YouTube first started the illegal posting of copyrighted works gave them a critical mass of users, but these days almost all the big "YouTube sensations" are original videos posted by users themselves (i.e. the recent South Park episode and Weezer video highlighting this phenomonon).

Shouldnt be that difficult, should be able to track bandwidth per video per use then categorize the vids into ugc or non ugc.

If the people I know are any indication, 90% is to check sports clips like boxing or ufc, or comedy clips from a guy with a cam in a comedy club all of which I am sure are copywrite protected. Some of those companies might think youtube is good marketing but its still non ugc.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How is it profitable to Youtube? They are not charging a membership fee although click on ads to exist.

Google bought youtube for 1.65bil.

They are not cash positive, and likely never will be, what they are is a measurable asset with no goods except to rebroadcast ugc and non ugc, google uses them like they do everything else as organic advertising to feed the search engine.

That is what is more difficult to monetize, what does CNN using youtube to host debates bring to to Google as search revenue? Because guaranteed if youtube was only pure ugc CNN wouldnt have used them.

Some of their more popular ones are ugc now yes, but I am sure if the lawsuit goes to court instead of settling they will ask for the records since Youtubes inception which should show that their initial and likely entire initial growth was fueled by copywrited material.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Google bought youtube for 1.65bil.

They are not cash positive, and likely never will be, what they are is a measurable asset with no goods except to rebroadcast ugc and non ugc, google uses them like they do everything else as organic advertising to feed the search engine.

That is what is more difficult to monetize, what does CNN using youtube to host debates bring to to Google as search revenue? Because guaranteed if youtube was only pure ugc CNN wouldnt have used them.

Some of their more popular ones are ugc now yes, but I am sure if the lawsuit goes to court instead of settling they will ask for the records since Youtubes inception which should show that their initial and likely entire initial growth was fueled by copywrited material.

I still don't seem to understand. Just what is your argument?

Youtube (aka. Google) is protected by the USA DMCA safe harbor provisions.
Thus Viacom complaining of copyrighted material is irrelevant. They must
use the appropriate methods to ask Youtube to remove the content.

Youtube is NOT liable for any infringement under the safe harbor provisions.

Neither is Comcast. Or AT&T. Or any other provider, and Youtube
falls in the same category as them.

Youtube follows the procedure correctly. Complaint made, content removed,
unless it can be showed that the complaint is not valid (by a variety of
methods).

This is not a case about current law, even Viacom has admitted it doesn't have
much of a chance of winning, they would have to get very lucky in court. This is
about the law Viacom would like to have.

That law is the one you alluded to earlier in the thread. Make it so ANY
video of any quality is illegal to upload.

So, first sue knowing you will lose. Then go cry to <insert senator/congressman>
to make a draconian law you want, because the current law puts undue
burden on the copyright holder [who else should have to prove copyright??].

Think about the law you are advocating. You would not be able to upload
any video, your homevideo, your friends videos, anything to anywhere.

ers