Google Spent $100M Defending Viacom Lawsuit

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawsuits are never cheap, even if you're on the winning side. But not many cost as much as Viacom's lawsuit against Google. The search giant won before trial, and even so Google spent $100 million defending themselves. Incidentally, Viacom is appealing the ruling, so it's not even over yet. Perhaps it's no wonder our rights are vanishing online when it takes $100M to protect just one of them."

Comments

GO! GOOGLE! GO! GIRL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat that, slashdot !!

Re:GO! GOOGLE! GO! GIRL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like some of this weed

A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

On all matters regarding intellectual properties, only public defenders may represent both parties.

And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.

Re:A possible fix:

[Theaetetus]

And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.

That has nothing to do with the court system - it actually loses money on each case, whether patent, criminal, or civil. However, the city of Marshall, Texas makes a lot of money on patent suits, with lots of expensive hotels and restaurants for out of towners. Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses? Obviously not.
Forum shopping is bad for many reasons, but not the one you suggest.

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.

I'm curious as to what "profit" you think the East Texas circuit court district is making... hint: The courts aren't making a profit... maybe you're thinking of something else? Because I sure as hell can't figure it out...

Re:A possible fix:

[h4rr4r]

A simple solution would be to not require people to travel for these sort of court matters. Everything can be done by a teleconference between the parties, each at a courthouse local to them.

Re:A possible fix:

[Theaetetus]

A simple solution would be to not require people to travel for these sort of court matters. Everything can be done by a teleconference between the parties, each at a courthouse local to them.

And is the jury at a third courthouse? Or does one side get to look them in the eye while the other side is over video?

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost is primarily the hourly rate for lawyers, not travel expenses. This case barely even saw the inside of a courtroom. Teleconference maybe could have saved a few thousand, maybe even a few hundred thousand, but not any significant percentage.

Re:A possible fix:

[Sponge Bath]

Place suits on slashdot for some mob rule moderation. The loser (or CEO of losing company) gets an ice pick in the eye.

Re:A possible fix:

[tattood]

And is the jury at a third courthouse?

Do they have a jury for the pre-trial? If these are settled before they go to trial, then there should be no jury involved.

Re:A possible fix:

[AvitarX]

It could have taken the profitability for the town though.

Re:A possible fix:

[Theaetetus]

And is the jury at a third courthouse?

Do they have a jury for the pre-trial? If these are settled before they go to trial, then there should be no jury involved.

So, the suggestion is that they should do pre-trial matters via teleconference? They already do. Not unusual.

Plus, really, do you think the majority, or even a significant amount, of the $100 million cost was the airfare and hotels? Really?

Re:A possible fix:

[nine-times]

Better solution: make better laws, appoint better judges.

I kind of hate when you get a problem that stems from people doing stupid things and everyone runs around trying to figure out how to rejigger the system to make stupid things impossible. There is no systematic way to stop stupid greedy corrupt people from wreaking havoc. You can come up with systems that will diminish the amount of damage any one stupid greedy corrupt person can do, but that's about it. If you let stupid greedy corrupt people stay in charge, they'll still wreak havoc.

Re:A possible fix:

[bobcat7677]

How about establishing "jurisdiction" for software patent cases. It seems stupid to me that they get to cherry pick courts just because it's difficult to say "where" the problem happened. Jurisdiction should be well defined for these types of cases, such as going to the court presiding over the locality the copyrite/patent owner resides (in the case of corporate entities, the locale of their primary place of business [IE: Corporate office location]). And all other courts can/must say "not my problem [Jurisdiction]". Establishing "shared" court facilities to allow plaintiffs and defendants to attend hearings and present evidence "remotely" as the parent mentioned would complete the picture.

Re:A possible fix:

[gandhi_2]

Your invention of the "ice pick in the eye over the internet" would just land you in court against this guy.

Re:A possible fix:

[iamhassi]

"Better solution: make better laws, appoint better judges."

It's not the laws, this was a lawsuit that didn't even enter a courtroom. I can sue anyone for anything: if I knew your name and address I could sue you right now for... oh, let's say slander and you'd have to shell out $$$ or be found guilty. Oh sure you could counter sue saying the lawsuit has no basis and might get your money back, but you'd still have to shell out the $$$ first just to go to court.

Legal system is no better: without any proof or evidence at all I could accuse anyone of assault and the police will go arrest them and put them in jail and maybe the next day they could talk to a judge and get out of jail after paying thousands in bail. That's what this women did. She sent fake harassing text messages to herself and her ex-boyfriend was arrested three times before the police finally investigated to see that all the text messages were sent close to where the woman worked. Each time he was arrested he had to pay thousands in bail money and now has a police record for harassment that he has to try and clear up.

The US legal system is horrible.

Re:A possible fix:

[jeffasselin]

The city may be losing money, but the officials, judges and the people working in that system aren't.

Re:A possible fix:

[interkin3tic]

Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses?

If it will allow me to continue watching videos of cats doing cute things, people falling down in funny ways, breakdancing, and all the other silly but entertaining things I see on youtube, then I'll suggest that yes, communism socialism anarchy or whatever in Marshall Texas is just fine for me personally. Cede it to North Korea for all I care, just don't let Viacom win.

(I should explicitly mention that I am not a lawyer, not from Texas, and am not serious)

Re:A possible fix:

[MBGMorden]

The outside jurisdiction stuff can't be helped, but I think the GP's point is still valid.

In criminal cases, if you're accused you're provided an attorney if you cannot afford one. This isn't true in civil cases. In this day and age, your average citizen cannot afford justice against a big company. That's the main point. Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, the working man can't afford to take a case to a final verdict anyways.

I say that public defenders should be available to the defendant even in civil cases (the plaintiff should need to provide their own counsel regardless). If the plaintiff wins, then the defendant has to pay whatever judgement is handed down, but they don't have to pay their defender (let that be tax payer funded - a little unfair to the nation yes, but anything that keeps the system more fair is worth it IMHO). If they plaintiff loses however, then they must in turn pay the state's incurred cost for the public defender.

Re:A possible fix:

[nine-times]

So it's not the laws and judges, but it's the "legal system"? Can you spell out that distinction better?

Re:A possible fix:

[Scrameustache]

The US legal system is horrible.

The problems you mentioned are not specific to the United States of America. But considering that I've heard of rescuers sued by people who's lives they saved for injuring their arm pulling them out of burning cars, you do have a point.

Re:A possible fix:

[berzerke]

...She sent fake harassing text messages to herself and her ex-boyfriend was arrested three times before the police finally investigated to see that all the text messages were sent close to where the woman worked...

Actually, if you RTFA carefully, you'll see it was the victims that did the investigating first, and then took their findings to the police, who then ran with it.

Re:A possible fix:

[jklovanc]

Teleconferencing is generally a farce. There is no substitute for being in the same room with someone when important issues are being discussed. Much of human communication is in body language that can not be seen over teleconferencing. Sorry but a 4" picture of someone on a screen is not equivalent to watching that same person from ten feet away.There is also a separation effect in that people will say different things when they are in front of a camera than in the same room. Some people lie more when viewed remotely. For example, would your reaction be different a lawyer was two feet in front of you asking questions or if he was a talking head on a screen? Teleconferencing may work one to one but not when we are dealing with a jury, judge, lawyers, defendants, exhibits, etc. There is too much information lost on screens.

Re:A possible fix:

[onceuponatime]

I've always thought the legal system is fatally flawed. It all depends on how much you can spend on lawyers and that's usually a lot and never really recoverable even if you were innocent.

If the state were force to cover all legal costs for all law suites, they might think twice about the laws they make.

Another interesting alternatives that it would be interesting to hear the flaws with it is if every party could only spend equal money on lawyers. If one parties doesn't want to spend any more then the only way the other party could spend more was to pay the equal amount of the increase to the legal team of the opposition. This would at least balance out the justice dealt somewhat. What are the flaws with this approach? It's somewhat radical, but I swear it seems more like real justice.

Re:A possible fix:

[Achromatic1978]

who then ran with it

Actually, after they took the findings to the police, the police arrested one of them again and kept her in custody for a few more days.

Re:A possible fix:

[Xenographic]

> That has nothing to do with the court system - it actually loses money on each case, whether patent, criminal, or civil.

Well, they COULD let people transfer things to a more reasonable jurisdiction (i.e. one where at least one of the parties and some of the witnesses are based). Then again, the patent trolls have set up shop there, so they're local now and it doesn't do much good. There was a lot of press once, about how a ruling might allow for transfer to another jurisdiction, but it doesn't seem to have done much good.

Re:A possible fix:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The US legal system is horrible.

The US does not have, and never had a legal system. It has at best a system of order. This isn't terribly surprising considering that most law enforcement and legal officers in the US are elected rather than appointed. Law in the US was always essentially made up by civilians at a local level, primarily to keep whatever order was deemed neccessary at the time, with little or no thought given to justice, legal theory or common sense. The ultimate manifestation of the US system of law is California, where laws via constitutional amendments are enacted by public fiat.

Outside of laws regulating commerce---in which Americans excel like no other race---there has never been any real tradition of the rule of law in the US. Once they fall foul of authorities, US citizens are at the mercy of the laws and procedures they themselves have decided on. The US "legal system" is simply the emotive and vindictive will of the people made manifest, and no justice can realistically be expected from it.

Re:A possible fix:

[PopeRatzo]

Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses?

In Texas? Let me get back to you.

OK, I've thought about it. Upon extensive review, I've decided we should just ban Texas. Their Republican governor has spent them into an 18 billion dollar budget deficit, and the number one issue for the school board is to rewrite text books so they "ain't so liberal".

Yes, a high electrical fence around Texas is the way to go. It would be a shame to lose Austin, but it's a sacrifice worth making to rid ourselves of this evil. We should allow undocumented Mexicans into the US before we allow Texans.

However, the city of Marshall, Texas makes a lot of money on patent suits, with lots of expensive hotels and restaurants for out of towners

The day we make policies regarding intellectual property based on making sure "expensive hotels and restaurants" stay profitable, is the day we should just give up on America altogether and let the Chamber of Commerce run the whole show. Don't think for a second that there aren't a lot of dunder heads who would think that was a good idea because they believe the US government is evil. There's an entire political party based on the idea that the US government is evil, in fact. They keep trying to put the Chamber of Commerce in charge of everything except those damn elections keep getting in the way.

Re:A possible fix:

[slimjim8094]

Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them. Professional rescuers (paid fire or EMS) are a little more liable, but unless they ripped the arm off or injured someone when it was clearly unnecessary, it'll still be thrown out.

I do volunteer EMS and I've been named in suits a half dozen times so far. The only time I hear about it is the note saying I was named and it was dismissed - the ambulance chasers sue everybody all the way down.

Re:A possible fix:

[shentino]

No, the US legal system is wonderful...if you happen to be a lawyer.

And guess the number one profession of pre-election representatives to be?

Re:A possible fix:

[sjames]

They may be at any convenient courthouse, even one where another party is located, but will still view the trial only via video conference to avoid the unfair advantage you cite.

Re:A possible fix:

[iamhassi]

"Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them."

If only you were right "The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity, but not those like Torti, who merely take rescue action. The justices said that the perceived danger to Van Horn in the wrecked car was not "medical." The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently."

This article has a lot more information but basically it boils down to the law protecting bystanders providing medical care but not those who attempt to rescue.

it's a real shame, someone could be screaming for help but you have to just watch them burn or risk a million dollar lawsuit.

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

> most law enforcement and legal officers in the US are elected rather than appointed

You know how people can tell you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about?

Re:A possible fix:

[davester666]

Yeah. Coke and whores were the two highest line items on the bill. Hourly fees for lawyers were third, and paper handling fee's [copying, forwarding, searching] were fourth.

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as bad as some countries

Get a grip

Re:A possible fix:

[slimjim8094]

I had not read about that case, and while I think the court made the wrong decision from a societal standpoint (discouraging bystanders), it was probably the right decision for this case.

Let me explain: "I thought I saw smoke" is not enough of a reason, and the potential (and actual) damages were severe enough, that she should not have moved the woman. It sounds like the woman was conscious but *not* asking for help... in which case you can't start doing stuff because you think it's a good idea.

Had the woman been unconscious, or screaming for help, this would've been simple. Had the car actually been on fire, this would've been simple. But as it was, the friend got a little too gung-ho.

The standard for liability is most precisely 'gross negligence'. If I were to attempt CPR with my feet, or misidentify a diabetic emergency as being drunk, I could be successfully sued. But if a patient died through no *negligent* fault of my own (say, I took too long to get them to the ambulance when I had no obvious reason to expedite) then the case would be thrown away. I've seen some pretty stupid actions by EMS people get dismissed, so at least in NJ the law is interpreted quite widely.

Another key part of good samaritan laws is that rescuers are to render assistance to the capacity of their training, and no more. My capacity is EMT stuff, but if I were to try to intubate somebody or attempt a Cesarean, I'd lose. A civilian trained in CPR shouldn't be administering nitroglycerin or his own Epi-Pen (fine to use the victim's own). And a completely untrained bystander shouldn't be attempting CPR.

Basically, you want to protect the guy running up and starting CPR, or the guy dragging the unconscious person out of a burning car. Unfortunately though, well-intentioned but untrained bystanders will usually cause more damage than doing nothing. The case in California is an example of this. But these laws, and their navigation, require the potential rescuer to know the limits of their skills, and most people are terrible at that.

IANAL, this is not legal advice. If you know CPR, please use it if the case arises. If you don't, please learn.

Re:A possible fix:

[vuffi_raa]

I can sue anyone for anything: if I knew your name and address I could sue you right now for... oh, let's say slander and you'd have to shell out $$$ or be found guilty.

guilt and innocence are found in criminal court not civil.

Re:A possible fix:

[cparker15]

Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses? Obviously not.

How about just banning capitalism? That would solve the whole problem.

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Had the woman been unconscious, or screaming for help, this would've been simple. Had the car actually been on fire, this would've been simple."

The woman was high and drunk and hit a light pole at 45mph. Seems pretty simple to me.

Point is someone saw a pretty bad accident and thought the car was on fire and attempted a rescue and was sued and the courts agreed with the lawsuit. Stands to reason you're better off just staying out of it, last time I checked there's no law against watching people burn to death.

"If you know CPR, please use it if the case arises. If you don't, please learn."

Why, so I can get sued? Fat chance. I'll save my children and wife, but the rest of you can burn... sorry, I'd like to help but I don't want to risk a lawsuit. If you die nothing happens to me, if I rescue you I might be sued. Very simple decision. Maybe that's why these kids watched a child get beat and did nothing.

Re:A possible fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

Note, all this is about the system of *private* law, not public law (such as criminal law, or actions brought by The People or the equivalent, or in administrative tribunals and so forth).

The tl;dr version is: the federal court system does not leave a successful defendant whole, since the defendant will be unable to recover his or her full costs of mounting the defence (and that does not just mean legal bills), even if he or she is aware of exactly how to ask the court for a costs order. This is barbaric -- a successful defendant should almost always be fully idemnified by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

One thing is specific to the USA (at least District Courts) is that judges do not make costs orders favouring a defendant in a proportionate way where the defendant prevails, even if the defendant makes an early out of court settlement offer that *should* have been taken by the plaintiff (e.g. if that would have left the plaintiff materially better off than the judgment did). In most common law jurisdictions outside the USA, such an offer to settle out of court is given enormous weight in making adverse costs orders against a party that rejects the offer, unless the party does much better at trial, and they are designed to get rid of frivolous use of court time and to push both parties to settle without engaging in unnecessarily long litigation.

Another thing specific to most common law jurisdictions (including the District Courts) is that judges tend to be fundamentalist about the adversarial system. If a party is not making motions that he or she could be making, that would dramatically change the outcome of the trial, many judges will not take it upon themselves to suggest it, or to make an unasked-for order even if that would almost certainly be granted. Moreover, the same thinking leads to some litigants making endless representations against an order that the court is minded to make (after being asked), requiring counter-representations, and inflating the costs of all parties.

Judges in many civil law jurisdictions go beyond mere arbitration between adversaries - they have explicit investigatory responsibilities in the civil code, and are obliged to make just and proprotionate orders as the judge discovers need for them, even if neither party asks for the order.

So a litigation in a civil code jurisdiction would start with applications to the court to enforce specific sections of the civil code in the way codified in law. There are unlikely to be references to previous similar cases at that stage (or in most lawsuits at all), since the code is regularly updated based on the results of appeals courts decisions. This saves substantial research and early litigation costs for a claimant and for a defendant (who similarly would use a list of defences already laid out in the code) where there are disagreements on the law. Early litigation therefore focuses on questions of fact. "He did this" "No I didn't" kind of stuff.

In later litigation civil code and common law jurisdictions are fairly similar. One or both parties will make an offer to settle (on the grounds that "a compromise is better than a contest"), and if accepted that ends the matter, with costs arranged in the settlement, with each side usually bearing its own costs.

If the matter goes to trial the processes are fairly similar except that in civil code countries judges will be more active in asking about matters of fact and in asking questions of witnesses; judges will also make sure the matters of law are dealt with even -- perhaps especially -- if one side is relatively weakly represented compared to the other. However, this happens in some private law courts in common law jurisdictions, too.

At the end of the trial, judges may be asked to make a costs order. *If* asked, then District Court judges may award some (sometimes more than just some) costs to a successful party, but again the process is adversarial, so expensive legal teams are usually much better at extracting costs from inexpe

Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Google's self-appointed "right" to blatantly violate hundreds of thousands of other people's copyrights?

Re:Rights?

[Locke2005]

Google is not blatantly violating copyrights. As a common carrier that does not censor postings, they are not directly responsible for material posted to sites owned by them. In addition, Google would claim they have promptly taken down infringing material as soon as they were notified. Now, has Google assisted other individuals in violating copyright? Yes, and one could argue that as a corporation they should be held liable for contributing to copyright infringement. But they did not intentionally or blatantly violate anyone's copyright themselves.

Re:Rights?

[shentino]

It's possible GP was talking about the book deal instead of Viacom v. Youtube.

Legal ridiculousness

[haruchai]

  Maybe that's something that needs to be outsourced - civil suits. The way legal firms rack up billing is as great a crime as Hollywood / RIAA accounting.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Beardo the Bearded]

Sometimes, yes.

I'm an Engineer. It took me 5 years of University (co-op program) and six years of EIT time before I became a Pro. I would charge out time at about $200 an hour, which is roughly the same as other Pros. (This isn't what I get paid at work but then I get other benefits like steady work, legal resources and insurance, and a great environment.)

Lawyers get a degree before they go to law school and then have to spend years articling before they can do their bar thing. (What? I'm not a lawyer. My lawyer's a lawyer.) Why should they charge a cheap rate for professional services? Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training. It's not like on Law and Order or Ally MacBeal where it's just talking. Most of it is research, practice, and training.

Loser pay, though, that's the way to go. They do it up here.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[0123456]

Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.

Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training because laws are written by lawyers. So long as that's the case, law-makers will never do in one paragraph what they could stretch to a thousand pages.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[nomadic]

Laws written by non-lawyers tend to suck with ridiculous holes and unforeseen consequences. Condense a law that you find overwritten and I will find enough holes in it to drive a truck through.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Volante3192]

Because the wording needs to be (well, in theory at least) as precise as possible.

Try to fit IEEE 802.11 into a paragraph and not run into conflicts and problems.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[nine-times]

"Loser pays" sounds good when you imagine the "good guy" is getting sued and he racks up a bunch of legal bills winning against frivolous lawsuits, but what about when the whole thing is turned around?

Like lets say McDonald's was putting neurotoxins into Happy Meals and my child becomes permanently disabled because of it. I sue McDonald's, and they hire millions of dollars worth of lawyers who trounce my cheap lawyer. Now I'm on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees?

Or is that not how it works?

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Drew M.]

It's even easier than that. I'm pretty sure I've seen this idea mentioned before on Slashdot:

The best scheme that I've seen is to have loser pays, but with the addition that a side is only responsible for up to the amount they spent on their personal lawyer. This brings much more power to the little guy trying to defend a lawsuit, and also makes sure that the corporation can't bury him in an insane amount of fees in the case that he loses.

This also provides the incentive of "only spending as much as you need on a lawyer" and not a penny more.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[scot4875]

I would accept your premise if thousand-page-long laws written by lawyers had no ridiculous holes or unforeseen consequences.

--Jeremy

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[mini me]

There is nothing wrong with highly skilled people charging top dollar. The problem is that I cannot hire an unskilled lawyer to take my case.

If I want to hire a random guy off the street who is willing to represent me for $50/hr., so be it. It is my fault for choosing to use his services in the first place if something goes horribly wrong. Or maybe he will actually be really good at the work it and I will have saved a fortune.

I recall reading about a case where a lawyer got into a lot of trouble for practising without the bar. What was most notable is that the article said he was really good at what he did. Why is the bar even necessary in cases like that? The bar does not have to be eliminated for those who want to have credentials to back up their services. That is how the free market is supposed to work.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[drooling-dog]

Yes, that's how it works. The end result is that only parties with very, very deep pockets will be able to bear the risk of initiating an action, since you can never be 100% sure of the outcome.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[nomadic]

It's a question of degrees. They have holes but they're a lot smaller, and can frequently be patched with a slight language change. A paragraph-long law would likely have to be completely rewritten into a longer form to fix its problems.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Scrameustache]

Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.

And laws are written by lawyers in a way to ensure that a lot of money will have to be paid to lawyers. Like that 1990's modification of trademark law that says that companies MUST sue for all perceived infringement or else lose their trademark, meaning that "yoga inside" gets sued because "x inside" is too close to a chip maker's sales pitch to be allowed to be used for something clearly unrelated to their field.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[AK Marc]

If laws were "interpreted" based on stated intent, rather than explicit word, then we'd be fine again. But when you have lawyers applying layman written laws, you will run into that problem. When you have laymen interpreting laymen written laws with the express instruction to follow the spirit if the letter fails, you'll not have any holes.

As for unforseen consequences, I'd rather have those than the laws that have specific hidden consequences (not unforseen because the writers saw the holes, they just hid them from others because they wanted them - just about anything ever written by an industry is of this type). And, you just change the law. For some reason, the law itself is self referential. That is, a law is important because it's a law. Thus, a bad law should be followed and not repealed because doing so is giving in to the criminals. So, once a law is a law, it shouldn't ever be repealed because, well, it's the law. That's stupid. Bad laws shouldn't take 13 years to repeal when 5 years in everyone could see that Prohibition was a complete failure causing violence and launching the modern era of organized crime.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Tailhook]

Lawyers get a degree before...

Law educations in government subsidized schools, with government backed student loans... Afterward, charge whatever the market will bear to hell with civilization. Those who practice law have an inherent responsibility to the civilization that chooses to respect it. Today the neglect of that responsibility manifests itself as indifference toward bankrupting all the non-lawyers.

This will sort itself; the western world is rapidly bankrupting itself and when the ride finally stops there will be little patience for contemporary "law" and it's self-serving ways.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Volante3192]

If laws were "interpreted" based on stated intent, rather than explicit word, then we'd be fine again.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does that include machine guns and automatic rifles?

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[spire3661]

Exactly this, lawyers game the system, and in the process everyone else pays. There is no reason lawyers should be allowed percentages of settlements, EVER. That, to me, is a CLEAR violation of ethics. Lawyers should be paid standard rates, not X percentage when the subject matter relates to law and precedent. Sure if you are a hollywood producer, X% of profit is fine and ethical, but in the legal profession the consequences are too great to allow such freewheeling gaming of the system for profit at the expense of justice.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Alarindris]

Like lets say McDonald's was putting neurotoxins into Happy Meals and my child becomes permanently disabled because of it. I sue McDonald's, and they hire millions of dollars worth of lawyers who trounce my cheap lawyer. Now I'm on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees?

Or is that not how it works?

No, not really. It's a shitty example. Something like that would be class action.

A better example would be accusing the manager of a McDonalds of spitting in your food, or the local mom and pop store putting neurotoxins in your food.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[the_womble]

No its not altogether how it works. In the UK, at least, user pays is at the judge's discretion, and the judge gets to decide what reasonable costs should be.

Losing can still be very expensive.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[CyprusBlue113]

Well, it doesn't specifically include them, which is the current rationale for excluding them. Not that I agree with that. The problem comes in with the previous wording "a well regulated malitia", which could have just been given as a reason, has been interpreted as an entitiy given those rights, and the power to regulate that entity

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Volante3192]

But, again, there's the whole intent, spirit, letter confusion.

If they spent a few more words on that one, we'd...well, we'd still likely be having problems over it, but probably on a more granular scale rather than "completely banning guns in W.,DC" scale.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Anonymous Coward]

I would accept your premise if thousand-page-long laws written by lawyers had no ridiculous holes or unforeseen consequences.

--Jeremy

I do not think "unforeseen" means what you think it means. The correct word in this context is "unobvious" -- the consequences were certainly foreseen by the lawyers who wrote the thousand-page-long laws.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[scot4875]

I don't disagree that the nature of the loopholes could be different, but I'll still offer up the explosion of the legal industry over the past several decades as evidence to suggest that even if the holes are smaller, the average person hasn't really gained much.

--Jeremy

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[scot4875]

How about if the amendment were worded: "The right of the people to protect their homes or to overthrow the government by whatever force necessary, and the right to procure the arms to exert such force, shall not be infringed"?

That seems fairly obvious as to intent. As it is, who is to say what a militia's purpose should be? Defense against an invading army? Defense against an oppressive government? The 2nd amendment is highly ambiguous, and that's why there's so much debate about it. It doesn't express its intent at all; "being necessary to the security of a free State" is an extremely nebulous statement.

--Jeremy

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[AK Marc]

What was the intent of those that wrote it? The sentence isn't interpreted the same by lawyers or even judges, so there is already some legal ambiguity. It wasn't written to be interpreted by non-lawyers. And, since it is so controversial, it would make more sense to abandon that wording and re-state it in something less ambiguous.

That's a horrible sentence (that isn't even a law, but a guideline for laws, and I stated laws, but I'll let that slide) for this example. It shows more my example of a bad law standing. Not that the sentiment is a good or bad thing, but that the understanding and application is such that it should be re-written to eliminate the silly debate. Yes, it seems odd that there are so few explanatory statements in the Constitution such that the inclusion of one seems to indicate some extra meaning, but technically it doesn't change the meaning of the words following, but would necessarily change the "intention" of the words following. In such conflicts, you say "nice try, now try again." And don't leave laws that are interpreted so widely on the books.

But no, as I stated previously, once passed into law, people worship the law because it's the law, and not the sentiment, meaning, purpose, nor effect. The fact that it is law trumps all. And so goes the Second Amendment.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[icebraining]

There was a similar case with a high school teacher in my country.

He was hired by the school and taught there for 13 years. Not only was he regarded as a very kind men (everyone loved him, from students to other employees), but his students got grades much higher than average in the national tests, meaning he was a good teacher too.

After 13 years the director board accidentally found out he didn't have a diploma, so they fired him (legally, they had to).

In the mean time, I had a teacher not so long ago who one time arranged for a jewelry salesman to show her the products in class, while we did some exercises.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[TapeCutter]

The "spirit" of legislation is just as open to interpretation as the "letter. For an example look at the history of the very simple statement "all men are created equal".

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[TapeCutter]

"But no, as I stated previously, once passed into law, people worship the law because it's the law, and not the sentiment, meaning, purpose, nor effect. The fact that it is law trumps all."

Yes that's what's known as the "rule of law" and where the term "the law is an *ass" is derived from, alternatives to the rule of law are less palatable and include systems such as "rule of the mob", "rule of the monarch", "decree of the demigod" and "whim of the pycopathic despot".

*Ass - stubborn beast.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Anonymous Coward]

So your solution to having loopholes in thousand-page-long laws with ridiculous hole and unforeseen consequences is to condense it down to contain even more ridiculous holes and unforeseen consequences?

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of "loser pays" systems are actually "loser pays a reasonable amount" - as decided by the judge.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[AK Marc]

So the opposite of unwillingness to change a bad law is anarchy?

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[Anonymous Coward]

Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.

Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training because laws are written by lawyers. So long as that's the case, law-makers will never do in one paragraph what they could stretch to a thousand pages.

Solution: laws written by engineers.

Re:Legal ridiculousness

[TapeCutter]

There are laws on how to go about changing/creating laws. They generally aim for stability over wisdom since it's impossible to mandate wisdom.

Other interesting monies

[erroneus]

Perhaps the data is published somewhere or is simply waiting to be compiled, but I would like to know how much was spent lobbying for the DMCA in the first place. This figure can then be compared with the money spent defending. Those numbers could then be used to show how much money was wasted on this and similar laws that offers negative net benefit to those whose copyrights are being "protected."

As we know, belief trumps fact. It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true. So perhaps such a study would be an exercise in futility, but perhaps before MORE stupid laws and treaties are put into place, these sorts of facts need to come out into the open to show the world what is really going on and who is really benefiting. Turns out that the individual people aren't benefiting (we already knew that) but the parties allegedly being defended aren't benefiting either. The courts systems are being burdened and tied up as well. It's all a tremendous waste and the only beneficiaries are the lawyers behind it all.

Re:Other interesting monies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a tremendous waste and the only beneficiaries are the lawyers behind it all.

And La wonder why everybody hates them...

Re:Other interesting monies

[MobyDisk]

As we know, belief trumps fact./quote>
Is that a fact?

It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true

Okay, I'll believe it then.

Re:Other interesting monies

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't follow your logic. Google won this ruling exactly because of the DMCA and the fact that the Clinton administration recognized some of the complexities of copyright on the internet. You might not like everything in the DMCA but so what? Like all laws, it's a compromise between many parties and factors that will end up pleasing nobody 100% of the time, but hopefully it'll please everyone at least some of the time.

Today you're happy because YouTube is still online. Tomorrow Viacom will be happy because they got a movie hosting site taken offline. All under the powers of the DMCA. To call it a stupid law is to believe you live in a simple black and white world in which either people agree with you and are smart, or disagree and are stupid. Most people grow out of that stage during their teenage years.

Re:Other interesting monies

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton passed a slew of bullshit laws that were stuck down. CDA anyone? You could be an ISP, have someone E-mail "fuck" through one end of your network and out the other end, then be hauled into a PMITA prison for 10 years because of that.

Same with the DMCA. It was intended to be outrageous, then the *AA would make "concessions". Same bullshit with ACTA... start at the extreme and "surrender" to the enemy to accomplish the goal of ensuring big returns with no creativity.

The DMCA is a stupid law, and it has done nothing except all the deep pockets the ability to stifle individuals and others without huge legal representation. ACTA is going to be more of the same, except go after countries who don't toe the line.

Re:Other interesting monies

[yuhong]

Not the "safe harbor" provisions, which is actually quite good and is the law in question.

Re:Other interesting monies

[steelfood]

Studies do not produce fact. They only produce a slice of fact. Which way you slice is up to you.

Ask Phil Zimmerman

[GPLDAN]

He spent every cent he had, and went into deep deep debt, trying to keep out of jail for a prosecution orchestrated by RSA as a political favor payback by the US government.

Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman

[Shakrai]

He should have used the 2nd amendment instead ;)

Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic impoverishment as a price for fighting for your rights is America's form of tyranny. It is favored by the wealthy and corporations. In poor countries where a person typically has little to lose monetarily they have to physically attack a person. Here they just ruin you.

Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman

[Hatta]

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman

[winkydink]

How much is he making off PGP's recent sale to Symantec for $350mln?

A hundred millions?

[Noughmad]

And here I was thinking RIAA's 16M was bad...

McLibel

[PIPBoy3000]

It's not always expensive to litigate. The classic example is the one against McDonald's.

Re:McLibel

[demontechie]

While your link is fascinating, how is spending over a decade of your life in court fighting a libel suit and related proceedings not expensive?

Sure, it's not money, but do you consider your time valueless?

What about Viacom?

[hannson]

I'm wondering how much Viacom spent on that lawsuit.

Re:What about Viacom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering how much Viacom spent on that lawsuit.

They don't need to. They just gestate new lawyer drones from the spawning vats for each case and reclaim the organic material for reprocessing and creating newer, more resilient ones.

Sure, there was an initial investment, per se, but now it's paid for itself in the long run.

a legion of lawyers

[circletimessquare]

litigating laws that should not exist in the first place

a kind parasitism, that we are all paying for

legal cruft, created by lawyers, in the service of paying lawyers and keeping them busy, but adding nothing whatsoever to society or the common good, serving to do nothing but waste other people's money and time and keep a bunch of pointless people buried under paperwork

what do these people create?

i'd like one of these lawyers in cases as pathetic and pointless as this to actually try to defend their useless existence

how can they wake up in the morning and not put a shotgun in their mouths, so utterly without any redeeming quality is their useless existence?

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Applekid]

I'd wager it's the piles of money and many extra-marital affairs that keep lawyers from taking their own lives in disgust.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

put a shotgun in their mouths

I've always been partial to the phrase, "suck-start an M16".

Re:a legion of lawyers

[localman57]

This is generally the response of people who can't get their heads around the fact that complicated things are complicated for a reason. People think there's no need for lawyers, or complicated contracts.

Two guys should be able to take out a loan, buy a truck, and start a moving company without a lawyer, right? It happens all the time.
Then, one of the guys moves to Florida, to take care of his ailing mother. Who gets the truck? Who makes the payments? What happens to the guy who stays put, who will now probably have to disolve his business, because his partner ran off?

A good lawyer helps small business people (or large business people) see the pitfalls beforehand, and form agreements before the fact. Most of the really nasty litigation cases (both business and inter-personal/divorce) occur because two parties throw themselves into a situation they haven't fully considered.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[biryokumaru]

Rainer Wolfcastle: The film is just me in front of a brick wall for an hour and a half. It cost $80 million.
Jay Sherman: How do you sleep at night?
Rainer Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Dr. Hellno]

Well, one could argue that the service the lawyers provide here is to test the boundaries of the law- to raise arguments that expose the practical realities of vague legislation. Was Google covered under safe-harbor? it's up to the lawyers to show us all the reasons they are or aren't, according to the law.

Just playing advocate's advocate

Re:a legion of lawyers

[nomadic]

So what do you do that is so valuable to society exactly?

Re:a legion of lawyers

[mapuche]

what do these people create?

They are keeping society in peace. With no other way to solve their conflicts, companies or particulars will try to end their problems with violence, just like mobsters do. Ok, you don't want to pay me? BAM. I invented this product, not you... BAM.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. But that's preferable to being actively harmful.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Hoi Polloi]

The problem is when the lawyers cost more than the truck.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[russotto]

They are keeping society in peace. With no other way to solve their conflicts, companies or particulars will try to end their problems with violence, just like mobsters do. Ok, you don't want to pay me? BAM. I invented this product, not you... BAM.

Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the legal system is so inaccessible (due both to cost and time) that it is not practical as a way to solve problems either. Its legitimacy is basically inertia; right now, if someone screws you, in nearly every case you just have to take it and move on, as suing will cost you more than it is worth. If someone with a large bankroll sues you (or even threatens to, or even could possibly do so if you're contemplating something they might object to), in nearly every case you just have to give in, as defending it will cost more than it is worth. Thus there ain't no justice. Eventually people will start realizing this and violence over such disputes will go on the rise.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, because a large number of those who make the laws in this nation are also lawyers themselves.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[shoehornjob]

litigating laws that should not exist in the first place

Let me play devils advocate for just a minute here. Say you make a nifty piece if software that everyone wants. You're a small independent company and you spent a boat load of cash developing this product of yours. Maybe you're not looking to get super rich from this. You just want to make enough to cover your overhead and make a bit over and above that. Now your software finds it's way on to every torrent site out there. Now you are potentially losing a lot of money that is rightfully yours. That Lawyer you were just disrespecting is your best friend. The system is not perfect but instead of complaining you could do something instead.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Um, ok.
As a law student and constant slashdot lurker, I'll say to look at this from the beginning.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
[The Congress shall have power:] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

People have the right to control their creations. This is currently enshrined in the 1976 Copyright Act. Viacom is complaining that Google has liability for copyright violations on its YouTube website, mostly arguing indirect infringement. YouTube isn't actually infringing, but has knowingly established a system by which people can share.

Googles argues that it is merely storing the copyrighted videos and thus is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provides safe harbor for storage as long as the storing company engages in proper copyright protection activities.
Viacom and Google are massive companies. Viacom wants to make sure that people aren't stealing its copyrighted content, which is certainly is right. There are issues to be had with the DMCA takedown notice system not lending enough weight to fair use, but ignoring that, Viacom wants the law enforced. It sees Google as knowingly ignoring copyright by creating a system in which people can post copyrighted works and not be found out, such as by posting videos that can be hidden from searches but linked for friends. Google says it has done a great deal to protect copyright holders and has not met the legal standard for liability. The court agreed with Google. Thank Jeebus.

Millions, if not billions, of dollars and an entire industry are at stake. Massive amounts of data and reams of corporate history were used to demonstrate Google's intents and practices. This sort of research and analysis of the law, understanding of case histories and legal histories, overseeing discovery processes, and general process of a suit this important requires years of expertise, not to mention man-hours of work.

Ignoring fair use arguments, which are not really the issue here, how would you decide copyright cases like this? Shall we settle by duel? Or perhaps lawyers should work for free? If you want the best, you have to pay for the best. Certainly professors write about copyright topics for free in law journals. And some lawyers work probono for those who need it. But these companies do not need it. As they have demonstrated, they can pay for it.

Copyright is very fact based and quite reliant upon judge-made precedent rather than written law. Lest we forget that fair use was invented by judges and only later enshrined by legislatures. And if $100 million gets a decision and strong precedent that protects Google, or any online content storage company, from liability, then I say that is money well spent!

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Not draining the nation's wealth with lawsuits? At least he isn't part of the problem.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[2obvious4u]

Thank Metalica, not the lawyers. The lawyers are there because someone lobbied a politician to make a law that someone else disagrees with. The lawyers are there to defend you (for a price) from the idiot that made a law. Who was going to get Lars' money from you dirty pirate? Well they got a lawyer to do it, but you didn't do it, so you get a lawyer to defend you. So the lawyer isn't the problem, Lars is the problem.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Draining? Lawyer sues, gets paid, goes and spends the money in the economy. How is it drained?

Re:a legion of lawyers

[mlts]

The lawyers are not supposed to. The person who REALLY needs to be knowledgeable about such things is the man or woman holding the gavel. They are the ones who are charged with writing the decisions and why they ruled the way they did.

Lawyers are supposed to make their side win above all else. It is the judge who has to be able to cut through the smoke screens and be able to render a decision that will affect the nation's future.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[localman57]

No they don't. A good small business lawyer can help you set up an LLP / LLC, plus give you a good start on all the regulatory, employment and tax stuff you have to file for a couple of grand.

Re:a legion of lawyers

[cdrguru]

Too bad. Should have gone open source and gotten a bunch of college kids to do the work for free. Then make millions on selling support for a completely unusable, undocumented and incomprehensible piece of software.

Because if it was clear and easy to use, nobody would need that "support".

And that doesn't even start to count the bribes...

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Countries that got smart

[Anonymous Coward]

and kicked out the jews

Year Place
1. 250 Carthage
2. 415 Alexandria
3. 554 Diocèse of Clermont (France)
4. 561 Diocèse of Uzès (France)
5. 612 Visigoth Spain
6. 642 Visigoth Empire
7. 855 Italy
8. 876 Sens
9. 1012 Mainz
10. 1182 France
11. 1182 Germany
12. 1276 Upper Bavaria
13. 1290 England
14. 1306 France
15. 1322 France (again)
16. 1348 Switzerland
17. 1349 Hielbronn (Germany)
18. 1349 Saxony
19. 1349 Hungary
20. 1360 Hungary
21. 1370 Belgium
22. 1380 Slovakia
23. 1388 Strasbourg
24. 1394 Germany
25. 1394 France
26. 1420 Lyons
27. 1421 Austria
28. 1424 Fribourg
29. 1424 Zurich
30. 1424 Cologne
31. 1432 Savoy
32. 1438 Mainz
33. 1439 Augsburg
34. 1442 Netherlands
35. 1444 Netherlands
36. 1446 Bavaria
37. 1453 France
38. 1453 Breslau
39. 1454 Wurzburg
40. 1462 Mainz
41. 1483 Mainz
42. 1484 Warsaw
43. 1485 Vincenza (Italy)
44. 1492 Spain
45. 1492 Italy
46. 1495 Lithuania
47. 1496 Naples
48. 1496 Portugal
49. 1498 Nuremberg
50. 1498 Navarre

Re:Countries that got smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Got a list for Islamic followers?

Repay?

[b4upoo]

One would assume that Viacom will be required to pay Google's defense fees. And a nice counter suit is always a possibility.
                        Florida has an answer to appeals trials. One is required to post the sum awarded by the lower court as well as a hefty fee to appear before an appeal court. Since it takes three or four years to get to trial as a rule the lost interest on the money as well as the build up of ongoing legal fees generally rules out any hope of an appeal trial giving relief. Then just to put the frosting on the cake the superior court often rules that the case must be kicked down to the first level and decided from scratch all over again. Then it takes another year to get back to court and get a ruling and there is no guarantee that the case will not be appealed a second time. This turns into a case lasting for fifteen years with expenses so great that the person fighting the uphill side of the battle will drown before it is over.

Re: Repay?

[dachshund]

Florida has an answer to appeals trials. One is required to post the sum awarded by the lower court as well as a hefty fee to appear before an appeal court. Since it takes three or four years to get to trial as a rule the lost interest on the money as well as the build up of ongoing legal fees generally rules out any hope of an appeal trial giving relief. Then just to put the frosting on the cake the superior court often rules that the case must be kicked down to the first level and decided from scratch all over again. Then it takes another year to get back to court and get a ruling and there is no guarantee that the case will not be appealed a second time. This turns into a case lasting for fifteen years with expenses so great that the person fighting the uphill side of the battle will drown before it is over

First of all, any post beginning with "Florida has an answer" should send you running for the hills. I've dealt with the State of Florida on a few small issues, and it's how I'd like my justice dealt.

More seriously, the problem with this approach is that it has a condition that ensures that someone will "drown fighting the uphill side". In general, any time there's a condition where one party can be "drowned" fighting for their legal rights, you can be certain that the drowning will overwhelmingly be done by those least able to afford the lawyers. It won't necessarily correlate to justice. I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.

Re: Repay?

[aaandre]

I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.

It's already here.

Where WE = the_superrich and EVERYONE = everyone_with_$1b+_litigation_budget.

Re: Repay?

[Dhalka226]

One would assume that Viacom will be required to pay Google's defense fees.

Unlikely. The US is not a loser pays system. Unless Google can prove that Viacom's case had no merit whatsoever (which courts almost never agree with, since frivolous cases are technically not supposed to go forward) or that they otherwise acted in some manner that abuses the legal system, there's little chance the court will order them to pay expenses. And even if they did, they would only order whatever part of $100MM they found to be a reasonable expenditure on Google's part. Obviously I don't know the specifics but that is a loooot of money, so I doubt it would be full and I'm not sure it would even be half.

go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[voss]

As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.

Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh
the theoretical loss of revenue.

Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company.
  Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.

Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[HeckRuler]

And thank god they did. I theorized when they bought YouTube that the entire point was to fight and win this battle. It keeps the internet open and free, a better place for the masses, and Google benefits with having more people doing more online, because they're an internet company. It's a rare day when corporate profits line up with the prosperity of the people, but they still deserve a salute for it.

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.

Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Kramer: But they do — and they are the ones writing it off.
Jerry: I wish I could have the last 20 seconds of my life back.

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[Scrameustache]

Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use.

Don't forget that viacom was uploading to youtube with sockpuppet accounts at the same time.

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[RobertM1968]

As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.

Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have, according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh the theoretical loss of revenue.

Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company. Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.

Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.

Screw that! I am very happy with the amount Google spent...

*IF* Google remembers this part of the DMCA: 512(f)

(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Inotherwords, Viacom owes Google their court costs, expenses AND the expenses related to disabling/removing the content. After all, Viacom knowingly had content removed that they posted or authorized for posting - that's a knowing violation right there - not to mention trying to use the DMCA for an "after the fact, the DMCA has already been satisfied on the other issues" attack.

If memory serves, there are other sections as well that spell out some pretty nice (errr... nasty) damages that Google could be eligible for. So... I'd rather see the full ball game becoming a win for Google, instead of just the first couple innings. That would be a much better precedent. No longer would the **AA groups be seeding content to use to try to catch others, no longer would they recklessly send takedown notices for content they dont have the right to do so.

Full court press Google!!! Go for the jugular!!!

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[shentino]

Connivance.

Re:go tell it to the DMCA buddy

[forceman130]

Not to mention that a lot of that cost is probably really just overhead. I'm sure Google's legal deaprtment costs them a pretty penny and this $100m is just part of the total, not above and beyond.

Fix? Who needs a fix?

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to adminstrate the assertion of the will of the rich over the poor, with the appearance of justice.

And it is working just fine. A bit slow perhaps, but good enough.

Simple fix

[gimpimp]

make the loser pay the defendants costs. viacom would think twice before entering into such a lengthy law suit that benefits neither viacom nor google's users, regardless of the outcome.
and $100m? wowzers! americans just LOVE money, hey?

Re:Simple fix

[Hatta]

What happens when I have to sue Google, or Viacom, or whoever? Then they can afford a 100 million dollar defense, while I cannot. Their 100 million dollar lawyers wipe the floor with my legal team, even if I'm 100% in the right. Then I'm on the hook for 100 million dollars, when I was the one wronged in the first place.

Not such a simple fix.

Re:Simple fix

[nomadic]

That's what contingency fees are for.

Re:Simple fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is among the only countries that allows contingency fees. It's seen as a way to help the small guy fight the powerful one. Cases like what they're talking about in the parent posts happen in Britian all the time. The small and meek run and hide from corporations. The only people who dare to sue are judgement-proof, possesionless idealists.

Re:Simple fix

[tomhath]

Better would be to only give the plaintiff actual damages and reasonable legal fees. Any punitive damages should go to the state. This removes the lottery payout from most lawsuits.

Hills? In Florida?

[Anonymous Coward]

]]] "Florida has an answer" should send you running for the hills.

Hills? In Florida? Have you been recently?

[I know, maybe some low ones in the northern parts of FL, but certainly not most of the state. ;-) ]

Re:Hills? In Florida?

[Volante3192]

Exactly. You'll be running far far away from Florida if you run for the hills.

Re:Hills? In Florida?

[iamnobody2]

well they'd be running for the hills not in Florida, which certainly seems reasonable to me.

When elephants fight...

[Drakkenmensch]

Every time two huge corporations duke it out in court, it's always a long protracted battle that can have only ONE clear winner: THE LAWYERS.

Re:When elephants fight...

[localman57]

Actually, there was a clear winner in this case. Google.

Re:When elephants fight...

[Drakkenmensch]

And how is paying 100 millions in lawyer fees any different from paying 100 millions in damages to Viacom?

Re:When elephants fight...

[Kjella]

I beg to differ. Sure, court cases like Sony vs Betamax aren't good for either party but the general public sure won. Assuming this goes on all the way to the Supreme Court and becomes one of those huge landmark cases, there is a lot riding on this. For a number of reasons most people will not self-host, they rely on services like YouTube. If the court does the sensible thing and finds that it's not Google's problem that Viacom is struggling to enforce their copyright, then that'll be a standard for all sites hosting user-generated content. Personally, I couldn't think of a better champion on this one unlike Napster, Grokster and for that matter TPB though it's in Sweden, not the US. I think that when the smoke clears it'll be obvious that we won.

Re:When elephants fight...

[shentino]

Simple.

You pay a shitload on legal expenses even if you have to pay a judgement.

It's the difference between 100 million and 200 million.

How was the money spent?

[DerekLyons]

I can't load the linked article - but I can't help but wonder if Google spent $100 million because Google could throw that kind of money around without second thought rather than because it truly costs that much.

rights....

[ihxo]

Google is defending their rights, not your rights.

The only reason Google gets away with it is because they are helping Viacom take away your right.

looser pays

[jaclu]

Whats wrong with the system we have in sweden - looser pays all legal costs.

That way you dont need to counter sue everytime, and even big corps wont take you to court unless they think they'l win

Of course it would hurt if the small guy sues big corp and looses, but thats not different in the us, so I dont think we are worse of in that perspective.

Re:looser pays

[nomadic]

That way you dont need to counter sue everytime, and even big corps wont take you to court unless they think they'l win

Yes, because a 100 billion dollar corporation wouldn't want to risk losing $30k in attorneys fees to say, shut down a critic.

Re:looser pays

[Civil_Disobedient]

because a 100 billion dollar corporation wouldn't want to risk losing $30k in attorneys fees to say, shut down a critic

Except that the critic they're trying to shut down wouldn't have to go hunting for a good lawyer if the case is solid. Presumably, lawyers for the defense would be lining up to take the case.

Imagine how powerful the EFF could become if they had all their expenses reimbursed for all the huge cases they've won.

I'm having a hard time trying to think of good reasons to oppose loser-pays, especially since we (U.S.) don't have the asinine defamation laws of the U.K.

Re:looser pays

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I cause you harm of $10,000. You sue me, and win $10,000 plus your $10M of lawyer fees. You could have won with much cheaper lawyers, but you overpaid because you thought I'd be the one paying for them. Why am I liable for you overpaying your lawyers?

Re:looser pays

[nomadic]

Imagine how powerful the EFF could become if they had all their expenses reimbursed for all the huge cases they've won.

As a lawyer, I think EFF does good work but I have some issues with how they operate. For one thing, as the page you link to indicates, they tend to take credit for cases that aren't even theirs; filing an amicus curiae brief is not litigating a case and shouldn't be counted a "win." I also note that concerning the attorneys fees issue, the EFF claimed $400,000 in legal fees in Lenz v. Universal, which based on what the news articles said about the case was ridiculous, though I haven't had a chance to check out the docket and see exactly what they were charging for.

Re:looser pays

[cdrguru]

In the US there is such a thing as a "contingency fee". This is where you convince a lawyer that your case is good enough to take on for 1/3rd of the proceeds. They get nothing if they lose. Lots of attorneys will take on such cases if they believe the client actually has a good chance of winning.

Of course, the problem is that nobody ever knows what is going to happen in a lawsuit. You go into court and you have no idea what might happen. With a jury you have 12 different people to contend with. Even with just a judge you have a person with potentially very different views of the world than you do. So the result can be anything once you get to court.

This is probably the biggest single deterrent to a lawsuit. You have no idea if your supposedly bulletproof case is going to end up as winning or not. Could be that the other side knows something you don't. Could be the judge sees it differently and comes down strongly in favor of the other side. You just don't know.

Re:looser pays

[jaclu]

not completely sure, but i believe that in Sweden, the court in the end of the case examines legal costs and only accepts "reasonable" costs, of course that opens up for some levy, but I doubt you would get away with 10M costs in a 10k case. Of course its up to you if you would spend that amount on a case, but you wouldn't get it all back even if you win.

Its not just online

[nurb432]

Our rights in any form now goes to the highest bidder.

StarCraft

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have built a competitor to StarCraft for that much!

Money better spent elsewere

[helix2301]

The sad thing is Google could have spent this money else were and actually did something that would have helped the technology community if they did not have to fight this stupid law suit. They are burning money defending laws that should not need to be defended. I hope Google keeps winning.

Bad Summary?

[SnowDog74]

Why does the OP say "our rights" when Google was ostensibly not defending "our rights"... but rather their rights. And even then, what rights of ours would those be? Does he believe we have a right to redistribute the works of others?