Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Good thing they pulled all those Viacom clips from Youtube last few months, otherwise they might have been sued for, like, a billion dollars!
Oh, wait.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I mean, honestly. What was Google EXPECTING to happen when they bought Youtube?
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!
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
1 Billion bucks? Could you _please_ pick a number that is at least related to what you're suing over?
Why ask for one BILLION dollars, when you can ask for ONE MILLION DOLLARS?!?! MUHAHAHAHAhahahaha...ha..aha..*ahem*.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
They should go for a zillion-gabillion dollars!
Lawsuits should always be based on nice round numbers, not actual proven damages.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
If it wasn't for the fact that Viacom think's that Google actually HAS 1 BILLLIOOONNNNN.... dollars to spare, they wouldn't be threatening them with the FRIEGEN LASER MAN! Ok, so they're just 100 times more EVIL than Dr. Evil.
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!
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
From the article:
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."Isn't that what Viacom does for a living? It isn't people at Viacom writing and producing all this content -- it's the hard-working staffs of these shows, coming up with ideas, generating scripts, acting them out, putting them on tape/film. Viacom just sits there, puts them in the marketplace, and rakes in the advertising money.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I bet Viacom will be aquired. Google made a comment awhile back about making in house content. This would solve that problem and save some lawyer fees, oh an a Billion Dollars.
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.
Right. Who's to say other companies won't follow Viacom? I'm sure other companies will be watching(no doubt on YouTube LOL) closely...
Where have you been?
SCO vs IBM: 5 billion.
liqbase
All of these lawsuits/stupid moves by the various AAs going on look to me like the final death throws of a star about to supernova.. So using that dumb analogy, two questions:
1) How long until the entire media industry implodes due to their short-sightedness and inability to embrace new technology?
2) In the ensuing implosion/explosion, how many consumers and even businesses will the media industry bring down with them?
Viacom publicly whining about the sorry state of MTV and similar holdings (Carlos Mencia!) and trying to burst the profitability Bubble 2.0 at the same time!
Cheers to them! But where will I find my favorite Al Qaeda training videos now?
A win win.
Personally I'm really tired of Youtube. It's all that is wrong with insta-fame types. Though seeing people hurt themselves just to make it big on the intertubes is amusing...
And well, programming on TV hasn't really enthralled me since, well ever. The tired cliche shows may amuse the masses, good for them, but not anyone capable of doing a little thinking on their own.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Who didn't see this coming? PS: I am waiting Mark Cuban's fireworks show for celebration :)
Once again, life imitates parody. I did not know they were worth a billion dollars.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That this will be as productive as th 1.25 trillion dollar lawsuit that the RIAA has filed over allofmp3.com
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
(as of about the time I posted this)
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?
Google, please drop all Viacom sites from google.com. After all, they hate all the free publicity and promotion you give them.
For a billion dollars, it's much cheaper to just buy Viacom....
Makes it sound like Viacom just shot themselves in the foot, but it makes sense. If it's going to cost a billion to stay in business, just by them out!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
Google: "No shit. Here's your billion, we've got a couple more to spare. Muh-huh-huh-ha."
GOOG: Mkt Cap: 139.97B
VIA: Mkt Cap: 27.71B
IBM: Mkt Cap: 141.50B
SCOX: Mkt Cap: 21.23M
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Wouldn't that be "YouTube LOL Beta"?
Google has been skirting on the edge on copyright law for a while now, especially with Google Books (which I can't imagine is actually legal, but is moral IMO). Can they win this? I don't see grounds for defense. On the other hand, how is that figure justified?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
US District Court Filing
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Yeah, it seems like many other people shared this view when the news of Google buying Youtube came out.
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?
Don't Viacom know that their precious DMCA protects Google?
-- lol pwned
how do i add "haha" to the taggin yoke? damned web2.0
Viacom wants to license their content to Google to show on YouTube. Viacom tried to negotiate with Google to get this done, but felt that Google's response (whatever it was) was unsatisfactory. Now, Viacom is taking the next logical step.
YouTube is going to take the same path as Napster did: it will be sued into oblivion (or maybe settle for however many hundreds of millions of dollars), and come back as a for-pay service, probably by showing clips of licensed shows for free (ad supported) and offering full episode downloads for a price.
(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.
.02c worth
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
Probably one of many reasons you will never have even a million dollars.
These money hungry companies needs to be put down for good!
Hear, hear!
It's good to see that someone is finally stepping up and giving the Old Yeller treatment to Google.
As Steve Dallas would say: never sue poor people.
Why sue YouTube when they had no money to collect? Sue them after they get acquired by a company that you know has lots and lots of cash, so you might actually have a chance of collecting a judgment.
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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."
But of course, Viacom would never, ever go after the fans, would they?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
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.
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.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
If they didn't sue over this, Viacom was going to sue Google over the defamation inherent in their "don't be evil" motto. They still face possible pending charges under that from the RIAA; SCO; Microsoft; Halliburton; the Republican party; Al Qaeda; Dr. Evil, natch; and, oddly, Bono of U2 fame.
Hardly. The big tobacco companies have been sued for billions of dollars at a time. Some asbestos class action lawsuits have crossed that threshold, too.
Because the original YouTube didn't have much of a money-making model, and certainly not one tied to the actual content played, while Google can actually match ads to it. E.g., if you search for videos about cooking, they can try to sell you a cookbook. (Well, at least in an ideal world where that keyword matching actually worked, and people actually set the right keywords.) So in a sense, now Google's income actually depends on covering the whole content spectrum. Any niche they don't have covered, is a niche they can't serve you ads for. I.e., in a sense, Google actually makes a little money out of helping share all that pirated content.
And that can make quite a bit of a difference for a lot of people. Using their IP can be anywhere between ok and an irritation for most people, but they'll turn outright hostile if you make money out of unauthorized use of their IP. E.g., chances are noone will go after you if you use someone's characters for a little fan story, but they'll turn very hostile if you proceed to print your fan stories as a book and sell it. E.g., Blizzard won't come after you if you just use WoW to make a silly music clip, but if you proceeded to use those as ads for your own products or sell DVDs with them, chances are they'd want their share.
Note that in all the above I'm not debating whether IP is right or wrong, or whether it should exist, or whatever. Just the way it works atm.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is interesting. How much do we all use YouTube. With computers the way that they are, we all can take video from the TV and make it what we want on the web. Computers have made it so Intellectual property as such is changeling. I guess I don't have a problem with an industry not making a lot of money over things that we could all make. The difference will come down to quality not quantity finally. I have thought that Hollywood was "Making another one!" Think about it, how many teen movies, or scary movies have there? Another teen movie, epic movie? Do we really need another? Yes it does supply mild entertainment, but we are smart enough to entertain ourselves. We have been given the tools and the masses say they like them. If you read the article Viacom is the only one who wants to sue. Not sure where copy rights are going, but they are changing. All thanks to a little thing called computers. IMHO reality TV was the first step. Once the people at the big business learned they could make millions on a few people and only pay one of them; Survivor; that was the breaking of the dam. It is a small wonder that we the people have done the opposite of them.
Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
If Wikipedia cannot be sued then how can Google?
IANAL; but to a layman the cases seem equivalent.
Until you have 10 companies each sure for a billion after google pays out. And that will cover all content up to the point of the lawsuit. Next year when they have content they shouldn't have up all the companies will be back. How long could google last with constant lawsuits?
How long will youtube last when all the commercial stuff goes away?
Wow you're the guru of predictions. You were only 2 weeks behind the often linked rant.
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.
First of all let me start of by saying I think that this entire thing is stupid, and is purely out of greed and has nothing to do with some great goal of protecting ones work, but since that's not going to change, I have a question:
If Google pay's that fee, which seems quite large, does that give then retroactive ownsership of all Viacom material?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Google has been spoiling for a fight over the DMCA safe-harbor provisions for some time now. Their book search and regular search business depends heavily on that part of the DMCA's enforceability. Without it, the Prodigy and Napster decisions could be used to annihilate Google and every other modern search engine.
Its far better for Google to explore the ramifications via a subsidiary company that can be cut loose to die if need be.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Hello:
I've posted clips from TheStandUpPhysicist.com, the education arm of my unified gravity and EM field theory using quaternions. I got a nice OK from YouTube, no questions. At Revver, they said thanks, but are you sure you have permission to use that song? It was "Math Prof Rock Star" by Jim's Big Ego, a perfect tune for the most nerdly narrowcast theoretical physics show ever. The song is licenced under the creative commons license attributions, non-comercial, share-alike license. Hoping to make billions off of the shows, I had negociated with JBE's business manager, and had agreed they get a percentage.
I told the revver folks that story. Sorry, that wasn't good enough. They wanted to see either the contract or get an email from JBE. A few emails later, and the clips are up on Revver.com. So I think revver.com is investing time and money in the process of due dilegence on copyrights.
Revver is better, they share the wealth.
doug
TheStandUpPhysicist.com
Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org
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.
to the extent that you control everything so that they cant do anything you dont want.
this is what proactive is.
viacom can shove their intellectual property up their arses - as long as they have that 'control people so that we can squeeze as much money from them' philosophy, they are going to be pirated.
Read radical news here
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!).
Actually, I see it more as "now they have resources enough to be worth suing".
If they had been sued before, their value would have dried up to nothing and Viacom would have won an empty husk (much like napster).
Google has deep pockets.
Wonder how much a controlling interest in Viacom costs?
I mean heck- Microsoft did it when they lost to Stak.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Just rich jackasses siccing their lawyers on one another. Frak the whole lot of them. Just never buy a CD or DVD again. What more can you do?
Oh Noes! I said frak! Does I violates someones copyrightness? Oh, woe am I!
Well, they may qualify under DMCA Title II for safe harbor. It would have been a bad idea for Google to buy YouTube without checking their compliance with the safe harbor requirements. It looks like they currently are trying to comply wiht DMCA safe harbor requirements (http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy).
So -- if Viacom didn't file any infringment notifications, or if they did and YouTube complied, then they'll have an uphill fight to claim any damages.
Google's technology puts them in an interesting and potentially vulnerable position. Given that they can target ads towards YouTube users based on content, might they be able to detect and control the posting of copyrighted material? It's a quite a stretch though.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because it's my understanding that if Google can demonstrate that the plaintiff knew of the infringement but were just waiting around for someone with deeper pockets to buy YouTube before suing, that really hurts Viacom's case. If you're infringing on my copyrighted material, I can't sit quietly for 2 years until you hit it big and then claim 2 years worth of damages. Then again, IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
"Viacom's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the rights of consumers, artists and ninjas," Everyone with half a brain said in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on creative accounting to traffic and steal music from artists to 'license' to consumers and then sue everyone with a listing in the phone book, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws, as well as 250 state an national laws on monopolistic behavior and sodomy.'
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Anyone else think this is Viacom's way of putting on that sexy dress, just hoping that Google will take her to the dance? What's to prevent Google from settling this lawsuit by just purchasing Viacom outright (and firing all of their employees)?
You don't have to license the content when you own it outright.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Fox already owns the trademark for using LOL in a televisual manner; expect your C&D letter in a couple days.
— News Corp.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Agreed.
The thing that always bugs me about television is that once it is broadcasted often it is impossible to find/watch again. Granted many shows are coming to DVD, as well as some special's but the bottom line is that there are some true gems (whether news, SNL clips or foreign commercials) that cannot be bought by any other means. While I'm not advocating ignoring copyright, I do think it is silly that Viacom thinks that all the content is worth a billion dollars when less than 0.001% of the people would probably buy it.
This reminds me of the RIAA's outrageous claims on how much every song is worth (only when pirated, but not necessarily related to actual sales). Profit by litigation.
Linux Resources
I don't see why the management of Google can't be morons once in awhile.
The attorneys' fees and other expenses that will be expended on this case are substantial, but not significant enough to challenge the resourcefulness of either company.
A high powered New York Law Firm might charge 750 an hour for a partner, 275 for an associate, and 150 for a paralegal. Even if they have a staff of 3 partners, 6 associates, and 18 paralegals putting all their time on this case, then they will be paying around 15-20 million in fees a year. Their total legal budgets are probably well over that as it stands, although probably not including this litigation.
...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.
I wonder how CBS's official use of YouTube is going to play a part in the trial. Viacom may already have lost as they are putting their own content up on YouTube. Might YouTube's user agreement open up their content for others to post?
YouTube is meant to be a video site of user-generated content. The problem is when the users upload copyrighted materials to the service. Google/YouTube itself isn't actually uploading these clips, they're just not "automatically" removing the copyrighted works. Until we have an AI capable of watching movies to tell if they are copyrighted (and one that knows enough about parody and other fair use cases), there will be no reliable way of doing this automatically.
I really appreciate you coming down from your clearly enlightened high horse long enough to type that up...
Dear Viacom,
I am writing to ask that you immediately drop your lawsuit against Google, Inc. While copyright law remains a fascinating and somewhat nebulous area in our society, the social implications are clear. People love sharing and viewing videos on the internet. For years I tried watching clips of the Daily Show, and other Comedy Central programming on a frequently slow or broken Real Audio or Windows Media format. I had given up watching the show because of the frustration. YouTube returned to me the ability and pleasure of watching Jon Stewart as well as Steven Colbert, and helped me to love these shows.
As of today I will begin a boycott of any and all products advertised during these two shows, until such time as the lawsuit against Google is dropped. YouTube has done a great service for Viacom - renewing interest in your programs and distributing them at no charge to you. The highlight clips created by YouTube users are far superior to what your site has to offer. As a viewer I will not stand by and watch this corporate greed, and I intend to use my financial and social influence to ensure that your company desists in its inappropriate actions.
Once again, no advertiser on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or any other program aired by Comedy Central will see a single dollar of mine. Please be assured that I will email each of these boycotted companies individually to inform them of my choice.
Sincerely,
zzug
[address]
[email]
[etc.]
At least he seems to think so...
Does anyone else think it's funny the link goes to MSN? I'm sure they published that piece with a big smile.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
But they would like to see some of the money that's being made. Having soemone else just make money with your product does not make any business sense, old or new...
If you look at things the "old" and "new" media, as you like to call it, are quite similair, make content, distribute, make money because people watch it...
I assure you, the future is not producing content and having other people make money without seeing any money yourself.
My advice to you, if you want to comment on something, get a decent understanding of the subject first....
But they'll settle for $3,500, and a promise to not infringe again.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But when it's posted for free, as in beer, they sue.
There's something rotten in more than Denmark here.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I must be missing something, but where is the advertising that YouTube supposedly displays alongside copyrighted content? I was just looking at YouTube, I didn't see any ads anywhere.
Can someone point out a YouTube clip that is both copyrighted and has advertising?
Otherwise, if not, and if Viacom is saying that YouTube has profited from the display of advertisements next to copyrighted content, then they're going to have a hard time making that case in court.
Also, it seems to me YouTube only provides a means to display movies, and ordinary users provide the movies. To my mind the closest analogy (here we go) would be my sticking a DVD in my DVD player and inviting all my friends to watch the movie. The maker of the DVD player can hardly be said to be responsible for my using it illegally.
This may have already been pointed out.
It's NOT google that's putting this out there.
It's individuals.
Not much different from someone putting a post of chapters of a book in a forum somewhere.
The content posted, and with that, the offense (if any is committed) is by the poster.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers.
Now all they need is guns. It would be much more fun and would earn the Warren Zevon seal of approval.
You'll have that sometimes...
There have already been several cases that have set or reinforced the legal precedent that people/companies running forum-style websites are not responsible for the content posted there by the public.
I dont think its YouTube that has to change. Its the laws that need to be changed for allowing this type of behavior. If I can watch it on TV for free then you best believe that im gonna watch them for free on the internet.
This sort of thing and advertisements are the ways of the past. Its time to get with the future or be forgotten.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Google also isn't posting the stuff, private citizens are. Yes, the illegal stuff gets a lot of publicity, but I do wonder what portion it is of youtube's content.
Of the last dozen or more video clips I've viewed on youtube, none of them were (to my knowledge) pirated material. Some of them were amateur videos, some of them were funny commercial clips (yes, some commercials are worth collecting).
Heck, some videos/groups have made their fame on services such as youtube. For example Yellow Fever (although how funny you find that one might depend on if you have Chinese friends/relationships), or how about a couple of jackasses trying to pull their car out of the snow, or just some of the aforementioned funny commercials
I would assume the terms Google was offered was the same. Buy the catalog for the right to private viewing, or no sale. This is certainly the right of the content owner, but just like the MTV attacks by the music labels, quite counter productive. The safeguards are now in place, and the one minute clips are free advertising for the network. In any case, this case will move forward, the laws will be clarified, and google will end up paying extraordinary amounts of money in legals fees and fines, which is, I believe, as it should be. These fines will keep the buggy whip company that is Viacom in coke and booze and girls for a number of years, if, of course, they can survive long enough to reap the payoff. Ultimately, since most of the assets are in very old media, and it has few modern blockbusters, Viacom is going to be hit quite hard when the market for dead stock media is no longer viable.
(And yes, we should be aware of the irony of a company suing for copyright abuse when in fact it profits from the same. But such is much to commonplace for it to ironic.)
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
Viacom was in talks with YouTube before the google merger about how to resolved the issue in a way that was benificial to both of them. However, Viacom wasn't happy with YouTube (pre or post google) and finally decided that they were perfectly capable of exploring new online distibutions outlets without YouTube. To their credit, the TV studios have been much more reasonable about adjusting to the internet than the music industry has been and do see it as an opportunity and not just a threat.
Anyway, the talks just broke down last month, and a pending lawsuit was expected. So no, I don't think that this is a money grab. I think Viacom wants YouTube to implement at least some type of filtering or be shutdown.
(For those going WTF?, that's another Warren Zevon song).
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Well, Dr. Evil demanded it as a ransom (after some helpful advice from his henchpeople) -- does that count?
A solid law team working on the case full time over the next 5 years will cost what, $25 million?
A solid copywrite enforcement team (ie: college interns who watch YouTube and send Google take down notices part time) over the next 5 years would cost what, $500,000?
An automated piece of software that does frame by frame image comparisons to all of YouTubes content to their existing library would cost maybe $150,000 to develop and maybe another $100,000 per year to maintain.
This is what happens when you let lawyers come up with solutions to technical issues. Instead of funding the next generation's education, or developing the latest innovation in video software, they're going to attempt to sue a culturally supported entity into the ground. Not that Viacomm will be any better off because of this lawsuit, but that the lawyers will be.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
What a useless post. You don't have to post if you have absolutely nothing to contribute.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
You're delusional if you think YouTube's primary source of videos is user-created content. Go look at the top list. How many of them are Anime dubs?
I know Google is hoping for the "DCMA > You" verdict which will basically say "tough.. they get to post it until you tell them to take it down".
But there is another angle Viacom could be positioning for. A de facto value for media shown via legal precedent. The court could say "well, you owe Viacom 50/70/90/100% of the money you made by showing their content."
If that happens then Viacom files for records showing how many views every clip of theirs has had and cashes in. If they find more later, they cash in again. At this point YouTube becomes a cash cow for big media. At the same time admittedly it becomes a small cash calf for producers of independent works which they copyright then allow to be shown on YouTube with the understanding that they may file and claim money for it later. The problem here is that it tears into the profitability of YouTube and that business model. Right now the YouTube business model is "have people supply us with content to show, then tack ads on to make money." Viacom will make the argument that in "brick and mortar" terms this would be like letting pawn shops sell whatever anybody brought in until individuals tracked down the stolen goods on their own and had the pawn shops take them off the shelves.
I could also see a variant of this where YouTube is required to manually view and verify all content is not copyrighted before publishing it if they are making money off that publishing. At that point YouTube is essentially destroyed because they couldn't afford the kind of staff it would take to have an actual person verify that something isn't a clip of a network show.
Overall I agree that this is Google picking when it is going to take it's stand and fight. They picked YouTube as the place. This could be their Iwo Jima, or it could be their Waterloo...
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
1) actively block search results that would bring google to viacom properties
2) buy enough stock in viacom to control their interests -- gotta' be cheaper than paying $1b
3) lure away jon stewart to another network.
to hell with viacom, those bastards
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
You've never been to youtube, have you?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
The YouTobe (and Google) business model is built on the idea that people will supply your business with content for free and you will reap the rewards of showing it with other stuff that you charge people for. Right now, ads.
It is like having a machine you turn the crank on and dollar bills come out. You turn faster and more money comes out. You never put anything in because the "user community" is keeping you supplied.
If it were possible to build such a machine, we would all be millionaires. If long-term the Google plan was reasonable, we could all be selling ad space to each other and never have to work again. Sorry, but the "everyone gives us stuff and we make money" approach is fatally flawed and it is about time Google found that out.
I have to admit, I'm not a Google fan-boy. I love their search engine, but I'd never trust them to hold all my e-mail and documents on their servers any more than I would Sony, Microsoft, Sun, or any large corporation. Even so, my sympathies tend to side with them, because of the ridiculous sniping of "copyright infringement" and crap they have to put up with in the name of providing a valuable public service.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
You must be some kind of genius.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Viacom is suing Google because it wants a piece of the action (payment for its content) going forward, one way or another. That could happen in any number of ways, probably a combination of legislation and agreements between huge corporations. This suit is just a move in the game, like "Pawn to King 4" in chess. Although they're actually further along in the game than that -- it started a while back, even before Google's purchase of Youtube.
After YouTube's handling of Nick Gisburne (An atheist who posted a slide show with quotes from the Koran that justify the harming of non-believers.) this is their comeuppance.
I migrated all my vids off there when the Gisburne affair happened. And I removed my blog from blogger to wordpress.
They should sue for a Googolplex!
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Watch the Google's stock price slide here
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.
The problem is that while there's a lot of original stuff on there, a lot of that original work uses bits of other people's work as well.
As an example, take this little video that showed up in my inbox about a slug-bug like game called Prius Punch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4R99pAnKWI.
For one, it uses the name Prius, which is definitely trade-marked. And it has little bits of well-known songs. Is it a derivative work that needs copyright release for those songs? Or are the segments short enough that they're covered under fair use? Can it use the name Prius in the game it's talking about?
It's pretty typical of stuff on youtube. Is it legal? And if not, is there enough entirely legal/original content that YouTube can survive?
IANAL, so I have no idea on the legal questions. And IANA-Market Analyst, so I can't help with that either...
while we're at it, why don't we sue Sony and Phillips for creating the CD, Phillips for the audio cassette, JVC for VHS, oh and how about DARPA and Tim Berners-Lee for the goddamned internet, that evil copyright infringing vehicle.
The owners of the content are the owners. They invest in new content, some that will be profitable, much that will not. It is their risk to take, and their profit to reap. YouTube users are posting this content and YouTube generates ad revenues when those clips are viewed. If Viacomm has or wants to post its content anywhere it has the right to do so. New Media or not, that they 'get it' or not is in my view irrelevant. It is their content to do with as they see fit. Just becuase it has been broadcast does not mean that it's now in the public domain for everyone to have a crack at. Don't forget as well that in many instances Viacomm has an obligation to other parties to make sure the work is protected. For people to come on here and say that they have a right to see this work, this content for free, that somoene is obliged to provide it to them is nonsense. You don't go to work for free, Slashdot does not give away it's banner advertising for free to their favorite companies, it just does not make sense to me to think in this manner. That Viacomm needs to rethink it's strategy or 'get with it' (to paraphrase) is really not the issue for me here. If they choose old models that may or may not become obsolete, that is their business, and up to the stockholders of the company to decide.
you can fence it off, you can control it
how do you control bits flowing around the internet?
your whole attempt to paint me as a communist fails it, because you don't understand the subject matter. i'm not a communist, at all. i am a fervetn capitalist. and my understanding of the digital world, and how to capitalize on it, is superior to yours, because you use a model for trying to understand the digital world that doesn't fit
in other words, you're exactly the kind of person i am talking about: you simply don't get it. the subject matter flies over your head. you use outdated models for trying to understand the digital world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, I share his perception.
i think there's a giant split in the Youtube community... maybe a three way split:
* people who use it to document interesting things they do, and the people who go to see them do it (the boingboing crowd)
* people who do blatantly attenntion whoring stuff (the myspace crowd; obviously the difference between these 2 can be a matter of opinion)
* people who use it for copyrighted stuff like anime dubs and tv shows
It all depends on where you find your links into youtube I guess...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
the point is, there are a myriad ways of making money off of content. what the internet does is enhance some of those ways, introduce new ways, and utterly antiquate other ways
in your post above, you're still stuck in thinking about how to make old media ways of makign content pay in the new media world
you need to simply accept that the access-control method doesn't work any more. move your mind off of that dead model. now, focus it on the new powerful ways, and the old enhanced ways, that your content can generate revenue for you in the world of new media
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Fair use provisions don't just include small portions of the work. You have to be using the small portion of the work in a larger work. IE, commenting on a single passage in a book, using snippets from a press conference to create a parody of the press conference, showing a scene from a movie to teach the importance of lighting in setting the scene, etc. Just taking a small portion & displaying it by itself doesn't fall under fair use. Heck, the riff from Under Pressure was deemed not to be fair use when used in Ice Ice Baby and it's less than a dozen notes buried under the melody & words.
Where this should die a quick & horrible death for Viacom is that YouTube is following the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA & removing copyright material as soon as ViaCom presents them with the takedown notices. Whether Viacom likes it or not, what YouTube is doing is perfectly legal, so long as they continue to take down videos that Viacom advises them of.
Given that YouTube has code in place to reject reposts of videos they have already received takedown notices about, Viacom's argument that they are doing nothing to prevent the infringement is incorrect at best & argued in bad faith at the worst. (incorrect will loose them credibility for shoddy groundwork, bad faith will get the case tossed and possibly sanctioned into paying Google's legal fees)
you think there is only way to make money off content. my point is not to stop making money off content, but to find new ways of doing it. people like you, your minds are stuck on the old ways of making money, and you dig in your heels, rather than simply accept the old ways are dead. there are plenty of new ways to make money off ocntent, as well as a few old ways that are now enhanced. but if you insist on thinking every single way old media made money is still alive, you're just screwing yourself in the long term
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
there are many ways of making money off content. the internet adds some new ones, and kills some old ones. i am not championing the idea people should make less money or no money. i am saying you need to adapt by stop trying to defend old models (access control) and adapt to new enhanced ways of making money. the internet is a powerful revenue generator. but you need to know how to use it. and defending your old way of doing business only hurts yourself in the end
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
but the internet is not a tv cable network. both can make you money, but you need to know how to use each one differently. if i told you to use a screw driver like a hammer, you'd say i was daft. trying to use a legal framework from old media days to deal with the internet is the same daft thinking. you use different tools different ways
so i am not telling companies to stop making money. i am telling them to continue making money, but to use different ways than they are used to
the problem is the marhcing into the internet model of business armed with the old media model of doing business and expecting you can call the shots. you will end of being very, very sorry and screwing yourself in the long term
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I just dont see how Viacom has any case here, neither google or youtube put those viacom videos on their site, its a site based on user submitted videos, its seems very unreasonable to expect google to watch every single video that is submitted then have a research team investigate to make sure the video does not hold any copyrights. So the only logical solution is to just remove videos as they are brought to googles attention and that did just that by removing all the viacom videos. so how is there still a case here? Sounds like a good way to make money if Viacom is successful, get some 15yr old kid to spend a couple days uploading all your copyrighted content to youtube them sue them for a huge amount of money even after you complain and have the videos removed.
Specifically the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) section.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Process:
- Viacom bot flags video as infringing - for as little as South Park playing in the background of a home movie.
- Viacom bot adds video to takedown notice of the day.
- Notice is sent to YouTube - on belief & good faith that Viacom is the copyright holder of the video.
- Youtube removes the video
- YouTube notifies poster.
- Poster returns notarized letter swearing under penalty of purgery that the video does not infringe on Viacom's copyright.
- YouTube notifies Viacom & reposts the video.
You can bet the next step is:- Viacom sues poster
The takedown notices need to have some penalties added to them also - unless you can prove malice, there is no penalty for one issued in error.How are they supposed to be proactive? Keyword banning? A video watching copyright identifying robot?
I did wonder about the commercials myself. But I suppose the differentiation from other copyrighted works might be:
a) Nobody (as in consumers, that I know of anyhow) pays to watch/buy commercials
b) The advertiser pays the networks
So I'm guessing that if a bunch of geeks like me like their commercials so much, they're quite enjoying the free advertising. My hopes would be that as such things become more popular (heck, there are award festivals for 'best commercials' now in some places) advertisers will learn what makes a commercial interesting/funny/watchable and produce more ads that don't suck
And how nice of them to step out from behind some industry assosiation and act directly - that makes it easy to tell who the players are.
It's just another round in the ongoing battle between those who profit from controlling the production and distribution of audio / video / text and the modern world. The internet killed their lock on access to entertainment and the media companies are fighting for their lives. It's a lost cause; they can't win. But they'll make lots of noise as they fight against inevitability.
Viacom Claims Copyright On Irrlicht Video.
Given that their "under penalty of perjury" DMCA takedown strategy seems to be based on trivial grepping, I have to question their grounds for claiming a beelyon dollars.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I don't think so. Publicly traded companies are ultimately responsible to their shareholders. News like this causes the stock price to slide and does not bode well for the company. If this lawsuit actually proceeds then it can only get worse. There are multiple other entities that may take a crack at Google -- regardless of the outcome here. This probably won't have a positive impact on the stock price either. Good? ... No way.
It's a lost cause; they can't win. But they'll make lots of noise as they fight against inevitability.
They can't lose as long as they control the broadcast spectrum, all major production houses, movie studios, cinemas, syndication, cable systems, billboard advertising, etc. It's called a vertical monopoly. American legislators once realized how dangerous these types of monopoly can be for consumer choice, they've become toothless over the years.
Viacom isn't going away without government intervention. What they control is worth more than gold.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
You're right that Google can't bankrupt Viacom via a lawsuit. Viacom is a big company with a reasonably strong balance sheet. Viacom's market cap is about $27B and Viacom has roughly $700M in cash and $7.65B in debt. No where near as strong a balance sheet as Google, but plenty to fund a big lawsuit. That said, Google has a market cap of $138B, $11.2B in cash and zero debt. Google would have to take on debt or do a stock swap to buy Viacom but since Google cash worth almost 50% of Viacom's market cap, Google could purchase Viacom if the deal was offered. I can't imagine Google doing this because it would be really stupid (IMO) for a lot of reasons but I'm just pointing out it is possible.
I know nothing of the particulars of this lawsuit but if I was a Google shareholder (I'm not) I would be worried. Even the most airtight lawsuit still can go the wrong way in front of a jury. I've never met a (responsible) lawyer who would claim there is better than a 90% chance of victory in any case. Google obviously knew Youtube was lawsuit bait when they bought them so they are potentially staking the entire enterprise on a lawsuit (or series of them) which doesn't strike me as responsible even if they think they are likely to prevail. If Google loses, Viacom will not be the last media company to sue Google. There is potentially a lot of upside for Google if they win but that is hardly assured. I suspect this will end up settled since both sides have a lot to lose if the lawsuit goes the wrong way and a lot to gain through cooperation.
Whatever happens it will be interesting to watch.
access control
old, enhanced model:
advertising
new model:
community building, fan management, esoteric content
now work it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
also: real world forums (which you CAN access control)
some ways the internet makes possible:
esoteric content
community building and fan management (more ads/ tie-ins)
both available before the web, but orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to execute on the web
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So let me get this straight..
you believe a site that allows user contribution of content should be forced to review every single of the tens of thousands of daily submissions on behalf of an unrelated company, at THEIR EXPENSE, because of some outdated laws which protect buggy whip makers from the motorized carriage?
this kind of allegation is aimed DIRECTLY at the DMCA safe harbor provisions.
according to those provisions, they have to see their content and send notices.. this does not obligate google to seek out their content proactively.
it is designed specificially to force other unrelated companies to finance these studios' enforcement efforts.
any positive ruling for viacom would, not to intentionally sound overdramatic, destroy the internet as it exists today.
sites like myspace, animemusicvideos.org, even wikipedia and slashdot will be wide open for shutdown unless they either kill off all user submissions to prevent users from infringing copyright, or adopt exceedingly costly moderation tactics which require a lawyer's eyes on every single submission.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't know why you're watching on Youtube, but most of the stuff I watch is almost certainly copyrighted. I can get entire instructional videos for guitar that cost like 50 bucks to buy on dvd, or watch old music videos. I understand that some copyright holders allow their stuff to be placed on Youtube, but I'm assuming that most of them are not. Even the video of the lady punching the other lady in the face that I really like has a version where it is mixed with a Franz Ferdinand song. Any time there is a copyrighted song playing it is a violation. I think it is even a violation if an artist is covering the song because a friend of mine recently had his a Prince cover he did taken down.
When I visit, most of the links on the home page are not commercial content, they're more like home movies. I have no interest in the commercial content of youtube; if I wanted that, I would flip channels on TV. But what worries me more is that most of the videos do have background music which is likely copyright infringement.
Is the "top list" even remotely relevant to the question? The question is not whether some copyright violations are more popular than the authorized content on YouTube, but whether the vast majority of videos are legitimate.
I'm prepared to accept a higher proportion of its viewers watch the copyright violations than would match the ratio of violations to legitimate content (that is, if 5% of YouTube's total video content violates copyright law, I can imagine that 20% of the average YouTube user's time is spent watching that content), but I doubt still that the vast majority of minutes spent watching it are used to view unauthorized content, and almost every search term I've ever used on YouTube has brought up far more authorized videos than (obvious) copyright infringements.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There is a vast lake called 'money' fed by sold digital media. YouTube dug a channel from that lake into their company. Instead of digging its own channel, Viacom heaps up the channel of YouTube. Is such a behavior actionable?
It's as simple as that. They're not asking for copyrighted material, they even ask you not to post it. When a company asks for something to be removed, they remove it.
The irony is, many companies don't care since they know this is free promotion for their shows. Other companies are smarter and post content themselves!
Viacom is shameless in this sense, and the lawsuit is ridiculous.
- sigs are for wimps.
Interesting arguement. My wording still needs some improvement methinks. Possibly an "If and only if".
However, nothing says when I will give you a million dollars. You'll just have to be patient.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I can't wait for this. I'm fairly confident that Google has been waiting for this and will most undoubtedly bury Viacom. This should be fun to watch. :)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
I was just about to ask about that specific scenario. What would be the liability of someone posting a reading from a book. You know, a "book on tape" that was unauthorized. In theory, it could be considered a "performance" and offered for free with no liability to the copyright holder (I think) as long as it was distinguished from "authorized" readings.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
And pull in ad revenue based on that? The problem (IMHO) is that Youtube is directly and knowingly benefiting. That's a challenge their going to have to contend with. A lot of companies would have died already, but they seem to have some staying power (not to mention the parent, who is a heavy contender).
Quack, quack.
"8. YouTube has also implemented features that prevent copyright owners from finding infringing videos by searching the YouTube site. YouTube thereby hinders Plaintiffs' attempts to locate infringing videos to protect their rights. At the same time, YouTube allows its users to make the hidden videos available to others through other YouTube features like the "embed," "share," and "friends" functions. In this way, YouTube continues to profit from the infringement, while hindering Plaintiffs from preventing it."
I think Viacom's lawyers were slightly confused on the usage of some of the features of YouTube. Reading the actual complaint it seems that Google has some server deep in a closet somewhere where they are deliberately hiding all of the old Spongebob episodes. The truth is though, that this will completely fly when a judge who hasn't used a service like YouTube.
Don't mess with Warren Zevon: He'll rip your lungs out.
there go the free gourmet lunches at GOOG ... Looking forward to mass-produced fast-food, McDonalds style. Would you like fries with that?
Unless they buy Viacom, they will have to pay up and/or remove infringments. Or buy a congressman and change the law.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
We are witnessing a historical moment: the train wreck that will destroy Google has started.
Make no mistake: Viacom will win this; under copyright law, they are absolutely in the right, and YouTube is infringing every bit as much as Napster and Kazaa were. Now $1Bn may not bankrupt Google, but similar payments to other rightsholders (Vivendi Universal, Time Warner, ABC/Disney, Sony, and so on), who are bound (by responsibilities to their shareholders) to jump in, will.
I predict that (a) within 24 hours, at least two other major media companies will announce their own lawsuits against Google, and (b) within two years, Google will have filed for bankruptcy.
That's a logical argument, but copyright law (in the US) has strict liability -- if you infringed, you infringed. Although there is an allowance for "innocent infringement" (you genuinely didn't know you were infringing), that affects the amount of damages...but not the fact you infringed.
So if you told someone in 2005 they were infringing, and they continued anyway, and you waited to sue until 2007, you take away their ability to reduce the damages by claiming innocent infringement.
I believe copyright infringement, in this regard, is comparable to the theft of physical property -- if someone is stealing gold bars from your garage for many years, and you overlooked it for years before you sued, they still owe you for everything they stole. If you believe there is a different legal standard, I would be interested in your source. I'm the Plaintiff in a copyright case over a photograph of mine right now.
www.cgstock.com
... while listening to the air conditioner humming.
Ahh yes because YouTube's only content stream are clips from copyrighted television shows and clips with music which is copyrighted by Viacom.
Because you know us peons are totally incapable of creating any content that doesn't include their copyrighted stuff.
Viacom, yes you might have issues with YouTube but really get off the soapbox.
K.
My brother is a independent film maker and says he agrees with Viacom. (surprised me!) He argues that in the future (not yet) one person could buy a film load it, and with things like Apple TV type devices beaming content to the TV from a computer you could have people just posting one paid copy and everyone viewing it streamed. There would be absolutely no money for the little guy. Even the big players would loose billions but that is where the remaining money would flow with nothing left over for small productions..... I see his argument and agree. Not to mention the thousands out of work all up and down the line from janitors to producers.
is that (1) Google saw YouTube as a threat to itself -- a prime starting place for young people in the tens of millions, (2) so they bought it just as Microsoft and other giants have bought companies in the past -- to shut it down, so (3) Google will settle with Viacom for some seemingly convincing amount (let's say $10 million) and start using a content-filtering system that works, with the result that (4) YouTube is no longer a threat to Google.
I come here for the love
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.
but you can't not see the difference? ISP's would most benefit from fairly priced HD downloads (if high volume was really their game, but that's the upstream provider you're probably thinking about). Youtube is low quality, high volume video. I mean, we've all watched them. But real video, by your logic would be the way to go. ISP's can open themselves up to loads of traffic. All they have to do is stop warning P2P and torrent users regarding bandwidth issues. They don't need Youtube to get higher traffic.
Quack, quack.
...except, is that actually considered legal parody? Taking straight footage and dubbing audio over it? Can I do that with a full length feature film and distribute it legally?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
BTW: I find you post a tad bit ironic, since Warren died of lung cancer...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
The safe harbor also protects sites like Slashdot, who also make money from advertisements and not hosting. The only difference is that the content is video instead of text. Also I think the vast majority of videos (at least the ones I click on to watch) are not infringing copyrights, they are posted by people who created them. Most of the rest are funny commercials that the advertisers probably wouldn't mind me watching all that I want. The thing that killed Napster is that 99% of the traffic was for copyright infringement.
They are providing a service, a place where people can come and publish their works for free that they want the world to see. This generates a thing called "web traffic", which is when people on the internet come to the site to "visit". This gets people called "advertisers" to spend money, hoping that the "visitors" will click on their link and maybe buy a product. It's similar to how just about every free website out there makes money from Yahoo search and message boards to Ebay to Google itself to even Slashdot. To do this, they provide the web application that enables people to share their creations and they pay for the servers, support staff, developers, and bandwidth.
It's not Google or Youtube's fault that you haven't started a company, created a web application, hired employees, purchased servers, and setup your network capacity, and marketed your site to attract visitors.
Yep - that makes sense. Why should we continue to make certain media sources super rich to the detriment of everyone else (who can now participate in creating content so move over Viacom). The BBC seem to understand online assets better than most media organisations. What about the consumer backlash against Viacom for attacking YouTube? It is us. We used to need big media organisations but they will now face fierce competition for eyeballs. That is the real problem for them. They think YouTube damages them - in fact the exposure does them more good in the new world where anyone can create a TV series and some cheap ones are gradually evolving better content than media infested expensive production houses. Did they not read TIME magazine that celebrated community contributions over the commercial dross that Network Television and Sky provide?
Googletube could prevent copyrighted material from entering their system if they really wanted to. They have billions and billions of dollars and incredible minds and technology. The fact is, the only reason they won't do anything about it is that no one would use YouTube anymore. Googletube is building wealth on other people's hard work, simple as that.
Speaking of blatant attention whoring: http://youtube.com/watch?v=F-YzHAmKlOo
The lawsuit is not about access controll, the lawsuit is about publishing other people's content and making money off that without paying the copyright owner. No mater what model you use, this mechanism needs to be in there in a capitalist world.
Viacom is not saying they do not want to make money ff he internet, they don't like his particular situation.
I'm fairly sure Viacom _is_ looking at new ways of using the Internet. Maybe they have a different visio than you, but that's what happens in a changing world....
If and only if you can tell me whether or not I want to give you a million dollars, I will give you a million dollars.
Nice try... You don't want to give me a million dollars, but by your rules, you'll have to.
I agree that if you have a case of someone infringing your copyrights, you still have a case whether you sue immediately or not. It was my understanding (and I've long forgot the source) that just as there's a provision for "innocent infringement", there are provisions against holding off on bringing a suit just so you can claim higher damages. I'm sure your attorney will give you much better (and accurate) advice than I could though. :)
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Something that never seems to be considered in this kind of discussion is the whole net neutrality biz. It's obvious that the big ISP are trying hard to gain more control over the content they deliver. If they manage to institute a tiered system where content is delivered according to the capacity to pay of the content provider, then the big Media Cartel will again be in the driver's seat. I believe this is another prong in their tactic to maintain control of distribution.
in Google finance page for a company and it's balance sheet
which numbers reflect the amount of free floating money in the company it can freely spend on smth? I was looking for net cash but could not find it?
Let us assume it is "Cash & Equivalents":
Here is my revised table ($M)
GOOG As of 2006-12-31 $3,544.67
VIA As of 2006-12-31 $705.80
IBM As of 2006-12-31 $8,022.00
SCOX As of 2006-10-31 $5.37
So potential of GOOG going "IBM/SCOX" on VIA's "ass" is about $3,544.67/$705.80*$5.37/$8,022.00 = 0.003 in "IBM on SCOX asses" units.
I feel like "going mapkinase on Wall Street ass".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
That's still the difference in my opinion. Aware and can be are two different things. I don't *want* my ISP to police and watch my traffic (hence, no AT&T). But as a business in the market of publishing video content to share I think it would be silly to think they don't see what content their hosting.
*But* I can agree to disagree. I really don't mean to be harping on Youtube/Google. Just some thoughts. Personally I'm tired of the whole rush to monetize on the internet. Especially with the slow to start and sore losers like Viacom, et al.
Quack, quack.
Have Viacom followed the process to have their items removed from YouTube? If they have and Google haven't done anything then I can see their point. If they've not then Google should just turn around an' tell 'em to stick it. Google (or anyone else) can't be expected to 'know' what is Viacom's copyright, so there is no way they could automatically remove infringing videos. If Viacom are too lazy to enforce their own copyrights then maybe they shouldn't produce so much, or get out of the media business. I don't see why a third party like Google should protect another's assets.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
Unfortunately that is not the case, there is something implicit in the rules you are overlooking that perhaps I should make more clear in my next iteration. Namely, a correct assertion.
You assert that I don't want to give you a million dollars. I challenge this assertion, saying that I do. However, as you have asserted incorrectly I am honor-bound to withhold from you the million dollars.
The way you appear to be currently interpreting the statement is that all you have to do is state to me either option, but it is the statement itself that matters and not whichever option. Sadly, as the authority in this situation I must judge this interpretation as incorrect.
I will now perform another iteration in order to avoid this confusion.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!