Slashdot Log In
Viacom Sues Google Over YouTube for $1 Billion
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 13, 2007 09:48 AM
from the everyone-get-their-doctor-evil-fingers-up dept.
from the everyone-get-their-doctor-evil-fingers-up dept.
Snowgen writes "Viacom has filed a $1,000,000,000.00 lawsuit for 'massive intentional copyright infringement' against Google over YouTube video clips. '"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site," Viacom said in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Viacom Demands YouTube Remove Videos 225 comments
AlHunt writes "According to the folks at PCWorld Viacom has publicly scolded YouTube for continuing to host throngs of Viacom videos without permission. They are demanding that over 100,000 of its clips be removed from the site. This includes content from Comedy Central (no more Daily Show), MTV, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, and VH1. YouTube has acknowledged receiving a DMCA request from Viacom, and the article notes what a dire precedent this could be if Google can't reach an agreement with Viacom and its fellow IP holders."
[+]
Viacom vs. YouTube - Whose Side Are You On? 353 comments
DigitalDame2 writes "Lance Ulanoff of PCMag believes that the Viacom and YouTube lawsuit is a bad idea because it has the potential to damage the burgeoning online video business; instead, it could work with the millions of people who are currently viewing Viacom content on YouTube. On the other side, Jim Louderback, an editor-in-chief of PCMag says that Lance doesn't know what he's talking about: with all the content available online for free, Viacom can kiss those investments goodbye. YouTube is actively filtering, actively allowing uploads, and making money off of the content that's been uploaded. The courts will find that Viacom has been wronged, that Google has not done enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and that Google owes Viacom reparations. Whose side are you on?"
[+]
iFilm Infringement Could Blunt Viacom's YouTube Argument 119 comments
Radio Silence writes "Infringing videos on iFilm could undermine Viacom's case against YouTube. Although it's arguably not a nest of infringement like YouTube, iFilm appears to host more than a handful of videos for which its corporate parent Viacom does not own the copyright. More importantly, Viacom isn't engaging in the kind of proactive infringement identification practices it expects of YouTube, which may cause problems for them in court. 'if Viacom isn't willing to take the same steps with iFilm that it wants YouTube to take with copyrighted content, Viacom may have a harder time making its case before the judge presiding over the case. "It would have some persuasive value with a judge if YouTube says 'look, they're ranting and raving about all this infringement occurring on my site and they're not doing anything about it themselves,'" said copyright attorney Greg Gabriel.'"
[+]
News: Why Google Wanted a YouTube Lawsuit 105 comments
An anonymous reader writes "After YouTube was purchased for $1.6 Billion, there was rampant speculation that Google would soon be waist-deep in billion dollar lawsuits. Despite the enormous liability issues, Google purchased YouTube for a mind-numbing sum, leaving many doubters wondering if Google considered all of costs involved. A theory has been put forth explaining what Google may have been thinking when it bought the company." From the article "Letting YouTube fight this battle alone with their own lawyers might have resulted in a very public and unnecessary loss that would have crippled Google's video ambitions and possibly caused collateral damage to a bunch of related industries (especially search)." In short, the author argues that Google had a lot more to lose had it kept away from YouTube and let the old-media companies crush it with lawsuits."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Viacom Says "YouTube Depends On Us" 163 comments
Anonycat writes "Michael Fricklas, a lawyer for Viacom, has an opinion piece in the Washington Post laying out Viacom's side in their $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. Fricklas asserts that the DMCA's 'safe harbor' provisions don't apply because YouTube is knowledgeable to infringement and furthermore derives financial benefit from it. He also argues that putting the onus of spotting infringement onto the content providers represents an undue burden on them. Fricklas caps the argument by stating, 'Google and YouTube wouldn't be here if not for investment in software and technologies spurred by patent and copyright laws.'"
[+]
English Premier Football League Sues YouTube 231 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that the English Premier Football League has launched a lawsuit against YouTube and its owner Google, claiming unspecified damages. The league is sitting on high-profile content valued at $5.4 billion over the next 3 years in a recent series of auctions. This will be the second major suit against YouTube since Google's purchase."
[+]
EMI, YouTube Strike Music Video Deal 35 comments
eldavojohn writes "Despite initial complaints of copyright infringement, EMI is now striking a deal with YouTube. Perhaps they've noticed that Warner's deal has boded well or they've finally come around to free marketing? From the article, "EMI and YouTube have agreed to work together to develop ways in which EMI-owned recordings can be incorporated into user generated content by YouTube users. News of the deal comes just 10 days after EMI agreed to be taken over by private equity group Terra Firma for £2.4bn." YouTube is slowly building a cadre of friends on the playground while Viacom continues to bully the new kid."
[+]
YouTube Begins Defense, Seeks Depositions 106 comments
eldavojohn writes "YouTube has begun their defense against Viacom by first calling on 30 depositions from people like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert. While the article mentions that YouTube has not revealed what they hope to gain in these depositions, I think Jon Stewart's opinions will weigh in favor of YouTube. Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom, objects to YouTube's hosting of their content. Comedy Central hosts many Daily Show & Colbert Report clips on its own site, bringing in its own ad revenue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Whew (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait.
Please: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Google should hold Viacom sites hostage until they give up their legal rights. I for one welcome our new Google overlords.
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Free" publicity?
More accurately, people go to Google to search for stuff like Viacom shows. If Google were ever dumb enough (they aren't) to start self-censoring to penalize foes in other areas of their business, people wouldn't use Google. Google would be shooting themselves in the face to spite a pimple.
And it isn't like this is unexpected. When YouTube was being woo'd, Mark Cuban was widely quoted for saying "Only a moron would buy YouTube" [huffingtonpost.com] (because of the huge potential lawsuit liability). Maybe a better statement would be "only a non-moron that has the cash to pay off the inevitable lawsuits", of which there are only a few companies, Google being one of them.
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Funny)
In this case, Google would be shooting themselves in the face to spite a large cancerous growth.
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:4, Funny)
"You searched for Viacom. No results were found. Did you mean Torrentspy?"
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention the Iterated Prisoners' Dilema.
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:4, Insightful)
Fucking with the rankings does nobody any good.
Parent
Re:Please: (Score:5, Funny)
Don't bother. Just buy Viacom and stop suing themselves. Problem solved.
Parent
Re:Whew (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Either:
They'll settle, and millions of companies will line up to sue Google.
or....
Google will do an IBM/SCO on their ass and bankrupt them.
Place your bets!
Re:Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass" (Score:5, Insightful)
VIA: Mkt Cap: 27.71B
IBM: Mkt Cap: 141.50B
SCOX: Mkt Cap: 21.23M
Parent
Re:Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Either:
They'll settle, and millions of companies will line up to sue Google.
or....
Google will do an IBM/SCO on their ass and bankrupt them.
Missing option. ;>
This is a negotiation tactic being used to drive licensing talks that are going on behind the scene. My money's on that one.
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Austin Powers (Score:5, Funny)
Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
Lawsuits should always be based on nice round numbers, not actual proven damages.
looks good on them! (Score:3, Insightful)
I like free video as much as the next guy, but people *own* this stuff. And Google does not.
The billion dollar lawsuit looks good on them.
Re:looks good on them! (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down. They need to attack the channel regardless, and to do that successfully they need a copyright case.
Parent
Viacom Demands YouTube Return Viewers (Score:5, Funny)
Once again, life imitates parody [theonion.com]. I did not know they were worth a billion dollars.
Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Google's market cap: $139.97 billion
Viacom's market cap: $27.61 billion
CBS' market cap: $24.38 billion (sorta kinda relevent here)
I think it's just a little market cap envy. Next stop: Google buys Viacom?
Out of Court settlement (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were Google, I might just pay it. (Score:4, Funny)
Google: "No shit. Here's your billion, we've got a couple more to spare. Muh-huh-huh-ha."
Here's the PDF of the actual complaint ... (Score:5, Informative)
What the (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, in Youtube's favour, is the fact that the service clearly isn't intended as a vehicle for copyright infringement. Most of the material there is actually the home video stuff that the site is intended for, and they are making efforts to remove the material immediately.
Parent
Re:What the (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
I have worked at and run many ISP's, The lawyers ALWAYS insistent that any news feed be uncensored because the act of censoring or deleting any of the content could be used in court to show that we agreed with the content that remained. Thus we could be sewed for any illegal content that we missed.
Just my
old media logic (Score:4, Insightful)
when linking to content, hosting content, etc., you generate buzz, hits, pr, etc.
in other words, the more content you get out there, the cheaper you get it out there (hint: free), the more money you make: more traffic, more ad revenue, more awareness
this is the future, and old media doesn't get it. by putting traffic stops at the doors to their content, by micromanaging who seems what and when, you don't preserve your revenue streams, you kill them by making getting to them too obscure and/ or difficult
the guys who grew up on radio and television as their model just. don't. get. it.
Understandable. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that last question is what's going to need to be answered legislatively and judicially over the next decade. It seems wrong that Google is profiting off Viacom's work without permission or license, yet more restrictions will hinder the development of some technologies (ala some of the proposed remedies to mass copyright infringement via P2P). This, of course, assumes there is not some sort of drastic change in how copyright is handled - which I'm sure is the solution many Slashdotters would prefer, but doesn't strike me as terribly likely in the current legislative climate.
Re:Understandable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
supply and demand (Score:4, Insightful)
Viacom is doing NOTHING to make this content as available as it has become in youtube.
Maybe if they did, and put in their own advertising, they'd be making the ad dollars off this content instead of loosing it to youtube.
Has anyone else noticed... (Score:5, Funny)
...the entertainment industry's lawsuits are way more interesting than their TV shows, movies, and records? Maybe they should formally change their business model and go primarily into lawsuits as a creative medium.
Re:Chuckle (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Chuckle (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember that while each media corporation is under the misguided assumption that they are the only folks who own the copyright on content, in truth, there are lots of clips on Google/YouTube that the copyright owner has posted legitimately, and many more clips where the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. Viacom wants to shift the burden of filling out DMCA takedown requests to Google, despite the fact that Congress (miraculously) realized that a hosting provider should not be responsible for vetting every piece of content that a user posts to their service.
Viacom is in a far better position to take care of everything that comes before the deletion of actual infringing content. They are aware of what material they own the copyright to, they already know who owns the copyright on that material, and they already know that they don't want it on YouTube. They also have a legal remedy - a DMCA takedown notice - for having such material removed.
If Google has to vet all of its content to make sure that Viacom doesn't hold the copyright, then they can't just stop with Viacom's content. They can't even stop with every ??AA member company's content. No, they have to establish the wishes of the copyright owner for every single piece of material on their site. And if Google loses, then every website that provides hosting space and shows advertising alongside it - Angelfire? Geocities? - has to do the same thing.
That's why the DMCA requires takedown notices, that's why it absolves hosting providers of responsibility for vetting material that their users post to their services, and that's why Google is in the clear and Viacom will be ponying up their legal fees in a few years' time.
Parent
Re:I predicted this a while ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Youtube was popular but not really making any money.
Google buys them, and Google has money.
Now it's Youtube, but with money to sue them for. Google buying them just upped the risk factor considerably. Google has quite a few brainy folks on their side, I'm sure they saw the lawsuits coming. So I'm wondering, what's the plan they have in store for this contingency, because there's no way they would've gone into this without a plan...right?
Please?
Parent
Spoiling for a fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Its far better for Google to explore the ramifications via a subsidiary company that can be cut loose to die if need be.
Parent
Re:Spoiling for a fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Spoiling for a fight (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt there's any point to that; the courts basically cannot resolve this issue in any useful way within the current legal framework. The idea of handing out monopolies might have been useful when the point was to keep the kings friends rich and happy and the content controlled, but they simply cannot be reconciled with a free market economy and todays rate of technological and content evolution. As long as the system is tied to monopoly rights you only have the choice of who you're going to allow to screw everyone else (which fundamentally means, the more 'IP' we have, the more all of us are going to get screwed (and in slightly more economical terms, the more waste we'll get in the system due to monopoly inefficiency)).
It would be more useful to engage in actively trying to fundamentally restructure the 'IP' incentive system to a fundamentally non-confrontational incentive system. Look over the foundation.
Some say we need an incentive to be creative. While I personally disagree to a fair extent (and things like free software indicates otherwise), ok, I'll buy that maybe some people do need an incentive, and that some creative talent could be more creatively productive if they had a certain economic security. As the point of an intellectual incentive system would be to maximize creativity, that leads to the conclusion that we somehow may need to finance creativity beyond what a fully competetive market would do. So, say, a popular creative work of value to many people should conceivably generate enough revenue for the creator/participants to live off for a certain time (too short would be bad and an insufficient incentive, too long and there would be no (again, claimed) economic incentive to create further works (and spend too much on a single creative work, and you get fewer works for total economic resources spent instead).
So, how do we determine what works merit incentive? Let the free market handle it; works that get copied the most, ie, are most highly desired should probably be the first to receive incentives (until their useful payout is exceeded, the authors et. al die, etc, and the incentive no longer serves the creative purpose). As there would be no right to prevent copying anymore, there would be no particular reason to avoid reporting the numbers of copies being made, ie, it would free up anything from p2p networks through youtube, IPTV broadcasters, network radio broadcasters, etc, to record popularity of works and lay the foundation of who gets paid.
Then the final question becomes, how does one finance the system? First, realize that the current system is essentially a tax. The costs to the economy are very real and altho the copyright holders have a strong incentive to shut up about the actual costs to the economy, the billions they collect are as real as the billions the IRS collect. The difference is, with the billions the IRS collect, there's actually some theoretical and nominal responsibility and accounting of the costs to the economy and what they're used for.
As responsibility, accounting and some form of democratic control over incentive systems is generally regarded as a good thing, I'd say moving the collection of revenue and responsibility for the system over to the state agencies usually responsible for such things to be fairly reasonable. So where in the economy would it be most equitable to collect the funding? Personally, I'd say, where the money's made. IE, slap a tax on youtube ad revenue. Slap a tax on movie theatres. Slap a tax on IPTV revenues. In fact, slap a tax right over anyone who makes money off selling, distributing, or performing the works in question. As the works being played is recorded and accounted for (something which is already done in most cases), the funds gathered from display of that work will primarily be going to the creators of the work, making sure the incentive generated is both as equitably gathered and a
Parent
You want a cookie? (Score:4, Insightful)
So congratulations, you predicted that google would get sued over YouTube. With insight like that, maybe you could get a job forecasting the weather in LA (today: sunny. tomorrow: sunny...). Or maybe you just wanted to shamelessly link your blog.
Anyway, if anyone needs me, ill be over in the corner modded down to -infinity, flamebait. But at least I wont be claiming to be a genius for predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning (REALLY! ITS TRUE, WAIT AND SEE!).
Parent
Re:I predicted this a while ago (Score:5, Insightful)
The other difference is that I don't think anyone seriously believes that Napster's "library" was mostly original work, authorized (and uploaded) by the copyright holders, with the majority of Napster's users going to it for access to that type of content. Oh sure, some of it was, but the vast majority...
YouTube, by comparison, seems to be mostly original work, created and posted by the copyright holders to those works, they publish. As a tool, it's clearly aimed at legitimate uses, and Viacom's one legitimate complaint might be (MIGHT be) that Google just didn't police it well enough.
YouTube has much more chance of landing a Betamax-type verdict than Napster did. I'm not saying it's cut and dried, but I'd be surprised if they can't at least deflect the bulk of the liability to their (copyright infringing) users, which is arguably as it should be. $1 billion dollars? IANAL, but I just don't see it.
Parent
Re:I predicted this a while ago (Score:5, Funny)
Now all they need is guns. It would be much more fun and would earn the Warren Zevon seal of approval.
Parent
Re:All new... (Score:4, Insightful)
not a single clip was even slightly shady
Besides in your inane ramblings, where have you ever seen this before. Media companies have always wanted clips they consider their propery removed from youtube, and made a number of requests to do so, long before Youtube was bought by Google.
every clip that's ever been shown is worthy of at least one lawsuit!
And once again, who has ever said this? Nobody. Viacom want to be compensated for there clips making youtube money, which is what they do. Every clip shown makes google money.
This is a law suit that has been spoiling to happen for a while now, and I think both concerned parties have prepared for this.
Parent
Thank you for that (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah, big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they do it? Because this case will dictate and set precedent for the future of this business model. Google was already going in the direction of online video, but YouTube had a better userbase. Google couldn't afford to let YouTube to get sued into oblivion by some huge multinational media giant. It was in Google's best interest to buy the company and fight this fight with their resources instead of letting an underfunded (relatively) startup set the precedent.
Now, can they pull it off?
Parent
Re:Yeah, big surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Parent