Viacom Sues Google Over YouTube for $1 Billion

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.'"

Yeah, big surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, honestly. What was Google EXPECTING to happen when they bought Youtube?

Great!

[growse]

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!

All new...

[Jerry Coffin]

It's truly amazing how the fact that YouTube is now owned by a company with billions of dollars suddenly means that all the content is pirated. Apparently, before Google bought them, not a single clip was even slightly shady, but ever since they started to represent billions of dollars, every clip that's ever been shown is worthy of at least one lawsuit!

looks good on them!

[boxlight]

I'll probably get modded down for this, but I don't think it's right that Google is allowed to generate all that eyeball-driven advertising revenue by broadcasting other people's copyrighted video content.

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.

Please:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, please drop all Viacom sites from google.com. After all, they hate all the free publicity and promotion you give them.

Re:Chuckle

[growse]

Not wanting to defent Viacom, but I'm sure they'll be fairly keen to point out that they actually pay their staff...

Out of Court settlement

[CSHARP123]

This copyright violation is going on with YouTube since before google acquired them. Why didn't Viacom act at that point in time and close the website. Since google has the money and I think this will be setteled out of court by google giving them some money to get away. In the future we can see some big payday for Viacom

Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass"

[mapkinase]

GOOG: Mkt Cap: 139.97B
VIA: Mkt Cap: 27.71B

IBM: Mkt Cap: 141.50B
SCOX: Mkt Cap: 21.23M

What the

[tehwebguy]

Don't Viacom know that their precious DMCA protects Google?

Re:Chuckle

[conradov]

I didn't know YouTube was a lucrative business!

Re:Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure I can think of a number less relevant than market cap, actually...

Common carrier

[Anon-Admin]

(IANAL) I look at this and wonder is google will use the common carrier clause. By not monitoring and policing the content of the users they could well fall under the common carrier clause. This would mean that as a common carrier, they are not responsible for the content that is on there network. The end users would be responsible.

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 .02c worth

Re:looks good on them!

[CastrTroy]

Although I think 1 Billion is a little steep, I think you are right. I don't think that a TV network would last 2 minutes if they just decided to play content that they hadn't paid for. I don't see why Google should be treated any differently. Just because they're on the internet, doesn't give them the right to just broadcast whatever they want.

old media logic

[circletimessquare]

old media fails it

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.

Re:Great!

[Otter Escaping North]

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.

If you read the complaint ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the complaint ... Viacom claims that Viacom represents "one of the most important sectors of the US economy." Fuck Viacom; they're a bunch of folks who are getting rich creating the misery of others.

Understandable.

[Erwos]

I can understand Viacom's position here, and I don't think it's totally unjustified. That's not the same as "I totally agree with it", mind you, but I see where they're coming from. Google is using their copyrighted works to make money, and doing so without permission. Did said works get uploaded by others? Yes - but does this somehow absolve Google of wrong-doing?

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:I predicted this a while ago

[sholden]

Wow you're the guru of predictions. You were only 2 weeks behind the often linked rant [blogmaverick.com].

Actually, did anyone not predict this?

1. Website blatantly infringes copyright of big media companies, but company has no capital or profits
2. Said company is bought by huge internet company.
3. Website blatantly infringes copyright of big media companies, owner has huge amounts of capital stuffed under the couch
4. ??? No one could predict what goes here ???

It's like software patents, it's so patently (haha) obvious that most other people don't think it's worth mentioning.

Re:Please:

[ergo98]

Google, please drop all Viacom sites from google.com. After all, they hate all the free publicity and promotion you give them.

"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.

Re:I predicted this a while ago

[MeanderingMind]

Except that Napstar wasn't run by Google.

I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers. Good lawyers, ones who can put up a fight. Chances are Viacom is hoping that Google will decide it's better to settle than to fight in court, because any such fight would likely be long and drawn out.

supply and demand

[chinard]

its all about availability of content.

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.

Re:Great!

[drooling-dog]

Viacom, like other media companies, is mostly worried about two things: (1) losing control of the distribution of their product, and (2) losing control of distribution, period. The first concern is legitimate, but can easily be remedied by Google simply by not allowing Viacom's property to be posted to the site. The second concern has more to do with the fear of the rise of competitive distribution channels, and that exists even if these channels don't deal in copyrighted material. There is a finite pie of ear- and eyeball-hours out there, and if 30% of them are ever drawn to Creative Commons type stuff, that's 30% that isn't paying Viacom.

You want a cookie?

[Lanoitarus]

Look, im sorry- I really don't mean to flamebait here. In fact, I really ought to post this as AC just to avoid the karma dock. But Im not going to. Are you really patting yourself on the back for predicting that someone would sue google 6 months ago? Did you miss the hundreds of other analysts, newspapers, and critics that said the same thing? Did you miss how the one of the biggest aspects of the merger being talked about by wall street was the escrow account for copyright issues?

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!).

Re:Spoiling for a fight

[amper]

This was actually discussed quite a bit here on Slashdot back when the Google buyout was announced. The general feeling was that because much of Google's business model and future plans depends so heavily on the eventually outcome of the inevitable lawsuits that sites like YouTube are going to generate, that Google needed to buy YouTube just so they could be a party to those lawsuits, and use their considerable legal and financial resources to try to ensure that they get a favorable ruling.

Re:All new...

[mgblst]

Wow, you should really change your argument to Mr Really Extreme guy. You sure have a way of presenting arguments in a balanced light, by present both cases in the most extreme possible. "So you either hate all children, and want them all tortured to death, or you love them and want the best for them, which is it?"

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.

Re:Just numbers relevant to "IBM/SCO on their ass"

[Alioth]

The difference between Google and IBM is IBM is really worth its market cap, but Google's market cap is a hyperinflated bubble.

Prolly a reason why YouTube exists

[themushroom]

Not to imply that YouTube is in the right for having copyrighted materials or Viacom is in the wrong for wanting to rein in their material, but... ...Possibly the reason why copyrighted stuff gets put on YouTube is so others can have it because the owners aren't making it available. (This is also my excuse for certain people's P2P activites -- such and such isn't available through 'official' channels, you can't just run out and buy it, and some nice person with it has shared.) If Viacom doesn't want it on YouTube, they should ante up the goods so there isn't a p1r4t3 market for it.

Bless YouTube for giving the power (and 1980's "Time for Timer" PSAs) to the people.

Re:looks good on them!

[drooling-dog]

You're right, of course, but sites like YouTube are a huge threat to the Big Media cartel regardless of whether they traffic in copyrighted material. A major barrier to entry in that industry is access to distribution channels: theaters, television and radio airtime, etc. It's like supermarket shelf space. That's why indy musicians and film producers have had such a hard time winning eyeballs regardless of the quality of their stuff. YouTube and sites like it bypass the gatekeepers and short-circuit the whole system; now just about anyone can reach the mass public if their creations catch a wave. Just as in the music industry, that scares the bejesus out of companies like Viacom because it strikes at the core of their business model.

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.

Re:Great!

[aeryn_sunn]

Bankrupt them how? Viacom v. Google is about copyright infringement not patent and does not involve the complicated relationship between IBM, SCO, and a multitude of programmers and contracts...and not too mention linux code (or computer code for this and that), etc.

If anything, a copyright case is far simplier than a patent as there is no question that Viacom owns the copyrights in question as opposed to a patent case where there is claim construction and questions of patent validity, which itself involves loads, and loads of discovery and expensive expert witnesses.

This is not to say that the Viacom case will be very easy, it is just the issues and logistics involved are not the same as the IBM/SCO.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Please:

[tha_mink]

People suggest this every time, and every time the same response is valid: That's not a good solution on Google's part, because it ends up negatively impacting Google.

I guess I agree with you but isn't that what Viacom is is doing. Basically, since the two couldn't come up with a deal they were both satisfied with, Viacom is basically taking their ball and going home. I mean, we've been reading about possible deals since Google bought YouTube. Plus, there's http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/business/go ogle.php [iht.com]this deal that they made in August with Google video. I agree they can't really remove Viacom from their apps but still, it would be nice for somebody to stand up to Viacom and the like. It'd be nice for someone to give them a taste of their own medicine. Plus, if Google can somehow win this case, which...psheew...is gonna be tough, I wonder what the implications would be on the rest of the copyright infringing world.

Re:Understandable.

[smellsofbikes]

When I send mix CD's full of copyrighted material via USPS to my friends, USPS is using those copyrighted works to make money and doing so without permission. Does that absolve the USPS of wrong-doing?

Something Stinks Here

[Nom du Keyboard]

First Viacom broadcasts it, over public airwaves, for free, as in beer.

But when it's posted for free, as in beer, they sue.

There's something rotten in more than Denmark here.

Re:Yeah, big surprise

[Irish_Samurai]

They were expecting this EXACT thing to happen. Google wants to pick this fight. Let's look at the history.

1. Google Hires a well, known lobbyist firm to represent them. [searchenginewatch.com]
2. Google Buys YouTube even though everyone under the sun knows that makes them a target for litigation.

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?

Re:Please:

[walt-sjc]

This move by Viacom is just a negotiating tactic, much like Cisco's against Apple over the iPhone name. Nothing to see here... Move Along...

ISPs and P2P

[arevos]

If an ISP had a "per GB" pricing scheme, would you think that it would be justified for the entertainment industry to sue them from profiting from copyright infringement over P2P? If not, how is this different from YouTube? If so, does this mean you think ISPs should not have common carrier status?

Re:Something Stinks Here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nothing to do with the fact that when Viacom broadcast it, the content is padded with their ads that make them money, and when it's on YouTube, it isn't? I'm not saying I agree with their lawsuit, but it seems you're just ignoring reality to get a nice soundbite.

Re:Please:

[walt-sjc]

The dollar amount means NOTHING. They could have said $50,000,000 or $500,000,000,000 - the end result will be exactly the same, which will probably be that Google and Viacom will come to an agreement that google will do more to keep individuals from posting Viacom's crap, and Viacom gets to upload their crap to YouTube and stick advertising in it or offer it for sale (ala iTMS).

Re:I predicted this a while ago

[*weasel]

YouTube, by comparison, seems to be mostly original work, created and posted by the copyright holders to those works

You've never been to youtube, have you?

Re:Please:

[julesh]

Tit for tat retribution really only works on the playground. And maybe in international spy rings.

Not to mention the Iterated Prisoners' Dilema.

Re:Please:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Think of it from Google's point of view. How does that help them? Google is helped by having the best, fastest, most effective search engine around. That's why people come to them, and that's why google gets ad revenue.

Fucking with the rankings does nobody any good.

Re:Common carrier

[Anon-Admin]

Kad77, you sound like the VP of the ISP I worked for. That would be the one who called me at 2am because "We crashed and everything is down!"

I get in and ask what happened and he tells me "I was downloading a new video and needed space on the server. So I deleted the junk directory that contained all the etcetera stuff." My response was "What etcetera stuff?" to which he replied "You know, the E T C directory"

He is also the same guy that plugged 6 900VA UPS's into a 3$ plug bar from K-Mart.

He had great spelling, excellent grammar, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering.

He just did not have a brain!

Now, to make a point, I have run several anon-servers. I do not support or suggest censorship in any way. I was the one who suggested that we run it past the lawyers!

As to my spelling and grammar, you need to get both a job and a life! If the only thing you have to add is a critique of my spelling and grammar then you need help. This is an informal discussion, not a term paper!

Re:Chuckle

[Dachannien]

I'm sure nobody at Google works for free either. But Viacom wants Google to do its dirty work for free: examining video clips, digging up the relevant copyright information, contacting the owner of the copyright to determine whether it should be posted to YouTube or not, and removing the offending clips.

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.

Re:Please:

[ergo98]

Nope, "people go to Google to search for stuff like" "shows". For Viacom's shows, Google is one way, the easy way, to find them. Without Google there would still be a way, the good old harder way, to find them.

You mean using one of the countless other search engines?

Google's biggest asset is the quality of their search. If Google compromised that (e.g. paid placements in results, or removing a set of results just to penalize someone), people would stop using Google, and would instead use one of the many other search engines (many of which are neck and neck with Google results wise).

Google has next to no search-engine-ranking muscle to flex. Given that most are fervently against paid search placement, it's astounding that so many are so quick to support what is in essence "conform-for-placement" just because it serves their agenda.

Re:Please:

[kocsonya]

Tit for tat is actually a pretty good and stable strategy if it is widespread in the social environment of whatever entity you talk about. There's reasonable literature about it. If you have a population where most entities play the "do no harm" game then the tit for tat keeps the number of cheaters quite low. If you have a population of "cheaters" (i.e. greedy, selfish entities), however, a lonely "good guy" is pretty much screwed (although it might survive).

Hostage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call it "hostage" because Google has absolutely no obligation to Viacom to provide them with search engine service.

Personally, what *I* would be tempted to do would be to block anyone in Viacom's IP block from accessing Google at all. I'd say to do the same for YouTube, but they'd probably claim that was just to cover up the infringement, so it might be a bad idea.

I mean, exactly what does Google owe Viacom, anyhow? They aren't the ones putting up these clips--users are. And Google has what might be the one good part of the DMCA on its side--the Safe Harbor provisions. If anyone has a duty to police Viacom's "property" it should be Viacom.

I, for one, am sick of copyright holders trying to push responsibility onto everyone but themselves via technology and legislation. They want to, in effect, carpet the kingdom because they don't feel they should have to wear shoes.