Viacom vs. YouTube - Whose Side Are You On?

DigitalDame2 writes "Lance Ulanoff of PCMag believes that the Viacom and YouTube lawsuit is a bad idea because it has the potential to damage the burgeoning online video business; instead, it could work with the millions of people who are currently viewing Viacom content on YouTube. On the other side, Jim Louderback, an editor-in-chief of PCMag says that Lance doesn't know what he's talking about: with all the content available online for free, Viacom can kiss those investments goodbye. YouTube is actively filtering, actively allowing uploads, and making money off of the content that's been uploaded. The courts will find that Viacom has been wronged, that Google has not done enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and that Google owes Viacom reparations. Whose side are you on?"

Comments

somewhere between!

[DriveDog]

Success by Viacom in getting commercial stuff removed but no major fees rewarded would be perfect... less commercial stuff on YouTube.

Re:somewhere between!

[Seumas]

I'm tired of companies getting rich off of questionable or illegal practices and then, once they have a massive userbase, suddenly selling out to someone to go legit. It's what the original youtube did. It's what Napster did. Imagine if I started up a car dealership and instead of paying for my own cars to stock my dealership, I went down the street and stole them from my competition. Then I sold those and once I had sold enough of these stolen cars, I had enough customers and money and attention that I could afford to go legit.

It's even worse than companies like Worldcom that can completely screw people over and break every law on the books, fire one guy and just keep on doing business as usual. So the moral of the story is that it's wrong for you or me to "steal" and justify it with "fair use", but it's okay to do it if you're a corporation or are being eyed by hungry corporations.

Re:somewhere between!

[webheaded]

I'm sorry, but that's a crock of shit, honestly. YouTube and Google aren't stealing anything. When they are asked to take stuff down, they do. Beyond that, they have no obligations to police the shit out of the site. If the copyright holders want to bitch about it, then they can do so in the form of a takedown notice or shut the hell up. I can't even understand why anyone thinks that Viacom is in the right. Again, YouTube is powered by users, not Google. Pull your head out of your ass.

Viacom is right, google is wrong

[stratjakt]

Just because we like google doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.

Why should google be above the law, just because they're a /. fave?

Youtube doesn't have the right to host whole tv shows, movies, etc.

Then YouTube turns around to sue a website for copyright infrigement, for allowing you to download the YouTube content - that they don't even own.

I hate youtube. I hate google even more for their involvement of it. It's napster jr, plain and simple, and it'll be shut down.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[nuzak]

It's very simple: we like the content, we want everything for free, therefore copyright is evil. The justifications come after the fact.

I hate the RIAA and MPAA as much as anyone, and I think the DRM schemes are a pretty cynical attempt at lock-in and control, but this is pretty clear cut: it's Viacom's stuff that Viacom's advertisers pay Viacom to distribute, and Youtube is cutting them out completely. This is the blatant stuff that makes them push for things like broadcast flags and DRM from end to end.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[omeomi]

If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.

Actually, from what I understand (and IINAL), Section 512(c) of the DMCA includes a "safe harbor" provision that basically says that Google isn't liable unless they refuse to take down material that they have been told to remove by the copyright holder. For better or for worse, right now it's up to Viacom to check for their own content on YouTube, and alert Google when they find it.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[russ1337]

>>>"it's Viacom's stuff"

If they don't want people to see it, don't broadcast it in the first place.

If they want to control it properly, have could big rooms that seat maybe 100 people, and with large screens. Oh put them in public places where you can pay an 'admission' fee. You might want to serve food in the foyer as I tend to get hungry. Perhaps Popcorn.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[Curtman]

If I were to run a public ftp, and let people upload all sorts of copyrighted crap, I'm liable - wether I knew they uploaded it or not. Theres plenty of precedence there, people have been burned for "pubs" on their hardware, that they had no knowledge of.

And how is it that usenet has survived all these years? Some time ago it stopped being a place for geeks to chat, and got jam packed full of kiddie porn, pirated video, and warez.

My ISP has a usenet server, my University (funded by public tax dollars) has a usenet server, etc, etc. Not one lawsuit that I've ever heard of.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[nuzak]

Took less than five minutes for justification #1. Any more takers?

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[stratjakt]

I have no idea how usenet slipped under the radar so long. IRC + private ftps have been left alone too. Maybe it's just so geeky and obscure, and just doesn't do the volume to alarm the big guys - where napster and youtube do? I do know that in some cases posters have been tracked down and sued (stupid ones who let themselves be ID'd).

I also know there's a couple dudes that hang out in front of the 7-11 a block away, and I know they sell crack, I've seen them do it with my own eyes. I also know the cops must know, but they haven't done anything about it. Maybe they got bigger fish to fry? Maybe they've just given up on 'da hood'. Maybe their building a case against a higher-up and dont want to rock the boat?

Whatever the case, it doesnt mean it's okay to sell crack.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[iminplaya]

OK, so copyright is intended to motivate creativity.

Oh jeeze! It is not! It is intended to protect established distribution channels. That's ALL that it is for. nothing else. The only law that there is to protect the creators are those against plagiarism "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Note the second "and" in there. It is all important. Because to me, there is no such thing as "unauthorized use". So it has to include the part about false representation. It is something that is not transferable in any way, and it lasts forever. And that there is the key, and the ONLY thing that any IP law should apply to. IP law exists to protect business, not to motivate creativity. Creativity is properly motivated by necessity and curiosity.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong

[Mr2001]

It's very simple: we like the content, we want everything for free, therefore copyright is evil. The justifications come after the fact. Maybe that's how you think, or more likely how your imagined version of a file sharer thinks, but don't pretend you can speak for everyone who's opposed to copyright.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose restricting free speech in order to make information a scarce good that have nothing to do with "wanting everything for free", and in fact many of us would be happy to pay content producers directly for their work, if they'd just mind their own business instead of telling us how we can or can't use our own hardware and internet connections.

Hmm. Hom. Hoom.

[Stanistani]

>Whose side are you on?

Treebeard: "I am on no one's side, because nobody is on my side."

Side? What side?

[DogDude]

One multinational corporation vs. another multinational corporation. Why should I care? Let 'em slug it out. It's not like video on the Net is going to go anywhere, anyway. Spam is illegal, and he have tons of that. Kiddie porn is illegal, and we have tons of that online. Phishing and all kinds of other scams are illegal, and we have plenty of that. Does anybody think that corporate lawsuit #50,401,432 over online video is going to make any kind of real difference to anybody but the attorneys getting paid?

Go with YouTube

[AKAImBatman]

10 years ago, the music industry became aware of a little thing called "MP3s". They offered the potential of distributing music through online channels. But rather than embrace it as a new business outlet, fraught with exciting new opportunities and possibilities, the music industry tried to squash it. Before they knew it, Napster was created. So they quashed that. Then GNUTella was created and they could quash that. Then Kazza, and BitTorrent, and Limewire, and so on and so forth.

In the end, the music industry could not put the genie back in the bottle. It was only the introduction of iTunes that saved them from imploding.

I see a lot of parallels here. While YouTube videos may seem like a bad idea for the old distribution models, they are increasing the amount of exposure that many shows are getting. Comedy Central's hosts have been getting more famous by the day, thanks to YouTube, and CBS has managed to promote personalities like Craig Ferguson by releasing videos themselves. I can respect Loudback's position on this, but there's simply no room for stalling the market. The forces in action WILL demand a way, whether YouTube is the vehicle or not. It's better to embrace them than it is to fight them.

If you'll excuse the overused term, it's time to innovate!

Neither side

[Todd Knarr]

I'm not on the side of either Viacom or Google. I'm on the side of the law. The law, specifically the DMCA, spells out what responsibilities Google has, and what Viacom has. Viacom's argument here is that, while Google lives up to it's responsibilities, Viacom finds living up to theirs inconvenient and therefore Google should be saddled with Viacom's responsibilities too. Sorry, Viacom, but that's a matter for you to take up with Congress (who wrote the law).

Re:Viacom?

[Qzukk]

I don't know... all Google has to do is trot out Viacom's screwups like C&Ding a game engine tutorial and they can make a pretty good case that Viacom has no clue whatsoever how much of their stuff is on YouTube, and that their claims of massive infringement are massively overstated. Furthermore they can state that if Viacom can't figure out what they own, Google obviously has no chance to figure it out on their own, and therefore must abide by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and follow Viacom's takedown notices to the best of their abilities, given the evidence of Viacom's inaccuracies.

Who should Win? We should Win.

[Gonarat]

My knee-jerk reaction is to say that Google should win, put I think this case needs to be looked at closer -- this is a good example of the future meeting the past.

On Google's side:

They are complying with the DMCA takedown notices. The problem is, as soon as one takedown is done, another copy goes up under another title or user name. It is like playing whack-a-mole.

Not all of the content is simply copies of content available on the air. I have seen some well done "Music Videos" (i.e. Clips from different movies/TV shows set to various songs) and some interesting stuff like the (fake) Titanic II film promo.

YouTube video is low quality. I would rather watch a full TV show on a real TV set rather than YouTube.

Google is in business to make money.

On Viacom's side:

The material does belong to them. Having to keep issuing takedown notices is a pain in the ass, and takes up a lot of time and money.

From Jim Louderback, also of PC Mag - Jim's Column - Providers such Viacom have agreements with Cable and Satellite providers stating that only x% of their programming can be on line (x is typically 10% or less), so having all of this video online could open them up to breach of contract.

They are in the business to make money.

On My Side:

It is good to have access to content without a lot of restrictions. Like it or not, content put out by Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. becomes part of our culture, and should not be totally locked up. The problem is, where should the line be drawn? I think Viacom should allow clips and derived content, but I can understand wanting to keep some sort of control over it.

I want as much content as possible for as little money as possible (I already pay for Internet and Satellite, so I have access to most of the Viacom channels)

Solutions?

So what is the best solution? There has to be some happy medium where everyone can get at least some of what they want. The RIAA has been fighting p2p for at least seven years now, and has nothing to show for it but declining revenues and increasing hatred by the public. Why would Viacom and/or Google want to end up in the same boat? If Viacom wins, they will look as greedy as the RIAA and the public will find other places to post content. If Google wins, Viacom et. al. will just lobby for changes in the DMCA, which already stinks enough as it is. So what to do --

1. Settle this suit by Google offering Viacom a reasonable payment to cover posting of material. At the resolution that YouTube uses, neither Viacom or the Cable/Satellite industry should suffer. Most people would rather watch shows on a nice TV instead of a small YouTube window.

2. Figure out a way to end the content wars once and for all. This includes the RIAA's ongoing war against p2p and along with the YouTube crap that is going on also. It is time to quit suing and put the Lawyers to work actually doing something constructive for once in their lives -- fixing copyright so that it works in the Internet era. This may involve a small monthly fee along with my DSL bill -- I wouldn't mind paying $5 to $10 per month to allow for legal p2p downloads, YouTube viewing, etc. Forget DRM -- it just penalizes your customers and doesn't stop "piracy" anyway.

The market has changed, and resisting change isn't working. It is time to quit trying to turn back the clock, and time to move forward. The VCR didn't kill the Movie Industry (quite the opposite -- take that Jack V), quit bitching and get to work. Otherwise, Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. will end up committing slow suicide.

Your call guys.

Rant over.

Well Exactly!

[NickFortune]

I agree. It's not a simple either/or question. Does Viacom have a right to protect its copyrights? Yes! Is one billion dollars in damages sensible, sane, or in any way indicative of the damage to Viacom's earnings? Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.

And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed. I don't know whether it's just greed, dislike of Google or that they want to destroy YouTube. But I have to say that I don't really care.

As far as I'm concerned, Viacom's IP isn't worth one billion dollars of anyone's money and for them to win would be a serious miscarriage of justice. IMHO, YMMV and IANAL; but if TFA wants to know who's side I'm on, then that's who, and that's why.

Now if Viacom want to drop the amount they're suing for to something that makes sense in this parallel universe, then I might change my mind. Otherwise, Go Google!

Re:Well Exactly!

[Oligonicella]

"Their real goal is to force Google into a settlement that leeches off a steady stream of cash from Google."

Just like Google is leeching a steady stream of cash off of their products. Unfair, how?

Re:Well Exactly!

[NickFortune]

Imagine a store selling stolen televisions for dirt cheap on the high street. Millions of them. Even if they claim to have bought it in the first place from their clients before reselling it to their other clients, are they lawfully doing legal business?

First of all, you'll notice that I'm not arguing that no law has been broken. Secondly, theft is a different crime, and different laws apply.Thirdly the situation is not comparable; if your high street store is selling a copy of my television, and I still have the fully functional original, then I'm probably not going to get too bent out of shape over it. Doubly so if they're selling tiny low qality copies of my television.

Do the 1% (or less) of the masses, have a right to deny the artist (or their agent) their means of livelihood,

You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow.

I say, slap them with a billion here, and many more billions to come.

Right! Because they... because... You know, now I think on it, you never did get around to making the case as to why that figure was even remotely justified, You just rehashed some tired old RIAA trolls, rolled out a couple of sloppy, emotive analogies, and then dropped in your opinion as if it logically followed.

Sorry, no sale.

Re:Viacom is right, google is wrong CLEAR TO ME

[Nom du Keyboard]

but this is pretty clear cut

What's clear to me is that, if they could, Viacom and the rest of the industry would like to charge you every single time you ever watched a piece of their content. They haven't managed to yet devise a successful system to accomplish this (remember DIVX DVD's, or RCA SelectVision videodiscs that actually wore out on use), but they have never given up on this dream. And these kind of lawsuits are just more small steps along the path to the Utopia of having full control over every second of music, and every frame of film forever.

Re:what you mean is...

[QRDeNameland]

Youtube and Napster became huge because of the illegitimate content that was traded over them.

While I will grant you the point about Napster, I don't think it necessarily applies to YouTube. YouTube is at best good for short clips, whether copyrighted or not, not so much for anything full-length. Everything I've ever watched on YouTube is either video that the creator explicitly wanted to be there (promotional stuff for bands, etc.) or short clips from TV shows, that while technically infringing, is not any huge threat to the market for the real show and probably even works as promotion, at least IMHO. People who want to "steal TV" are getting it from BitTorrent, not YouTube.

YouTube became a phenomenon because it was the first popular way for people to share short video clips, not as vector to share copyrighted content. Yes, some copyrighted content does get shared, but I really don't see that as the *primary* reason for YouTube's rise, as opposed to Napster where I can't really make that argument.