YouTube Fires Back At Viacom

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As we say in the legal profession, 'issue has been joined' in Viacom v. YouTube. In its answer to Viacom's complaint (PDF), filed Friday, YouTube says Viacom's lawsuit is intended to 'challenge... the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube.' It goes on to say that the suit 'threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.'"

Comments

Too bad

[dunezone]

Even if Viacom were to win this, they would still be losing out.

Where is the first place I go to find clips of a show? Youtube. After that I head off to google in hopes of finding it somewhere else.

Would I go over to Comedy Centrals website? SpikeTV? MTV? No, because these sites are cluttered with garbage and intrusive AD supported video players. I usually get lost at these sites anyway.

Also, I'm 22, the perfect demographic for these opportunities and you've seem to have alienated us over the years with your garbage websites.

Viacom's case

[TheRedSeven]

Viacom's case seems to be based on the fact that it's too hard for them to keep up with all the copyright infringing materials posted on YouTube, and therefore YouTube should bear the burden of distinguishing what is and is not infringing. This is just silly. The burden under the DMCA is clearly on the part of the copyright holder, and that's the only thing that makes sense for companies who simply offer services of hosting.

The only other point Viacom has is that YouTube transfers all video into their own 'proprietary' format and then 'copies' it (by which, I assume, they mean "show it on multiple instances of XYZ web browser"--or maybe backups). This is akin to saying that WordPress has its own proprietary format for blogs, by which it copies and distributes information. What a joke!

And things get funny toward the end of the response, too. YouTube denies point #24, which reads:

Defendant YouTube, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Bruno, California.

If you can't even get that right, you may as well just give up!

My prediction (and hope) is that Viacom loses this one quickly and effectively.

In the end they will simply pay a license fee.

[Frosty Piss]

Even if Viacom were to win this, they would still be losing out.

Where is the first place I go to find clips of a show? Youtube. After that I head off to google in hopes of finding it somewhere else.

Remember that Google is no longer (and hasn't been for quite some time) the warm and fuzzy "do no evil" startup it originally was. Now, from a business standpoint, it is like any other multi-national. This is about money, and in the end if Google loses, they will simply pay a license fee.

Re:I would not be too sure about that.

[DrEldarion]

The difference here is in the fact that Google has way, way, way better lawyers than the defendant in that case.

Re:The best part was left out...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

At any rate, this won't be so much a case on the evidence (it's pretty open what YouTube does) but on law. Expect a few tons of legal opinions on both sides and pretty much a guaranteed appeal to the Supreme Court. What I would really expect is a settlement. Viacom has made a mistake here. They usually don't take on people who can fight back. They are going to get destroyed if they don't back down.

Re:FP?

[catwh0re]

Basically like this: CoS are paying YT a nice lump of cash to advertise on their site. So YT in return for this cash reinstate the CoS account. Money talks, no business has morals when it comes to cash.

Re:FP?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It is a sad state that most businesses have obligations to shareholders, but to suggest that all businesses only care about cash must, by extension, mean that this is true of all people. I disagree with that statement because

(a) an individual can choose, in any given moment, between self interest and trying to help someone else, but

(b) a corporate board of directors and corporate officers are pretty much required to choose the corporation's self interest. So a corporation -- if not closely regulated -- is essentially a sociopath with perpetual life.