Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Spent $100M Defending Viacom Lawsuit

Posted by Soulskill on from the expensive-justice dept.

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."

4 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. A possible fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Ask Phil Zimmerman by GPLDAN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Rights? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. go tell it to the DMCA buddy by voss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.