Viacom Sues Google Over YouTube Clips
Updated: 2007-03-13 10:42:34
Reuters
NEW YORK (March 13) – Media conglomerate Viacom Inc. said on Tuesday that it was suing Google Inc. and its Internet video-sharing site YouTube for more than $1 billion over unauthorized use of its programming online.
The lawsuit, the biggest challenge to date to Google’s ambitions to make YouTube into a major vehicle for advertising and entertainment, accuses the Web search leader and its unit of “massive intentional copyright infringement.”
Viacom filed the suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking more than $1 billion in damages and an injunction against further violations.
Viacom contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of its programming have been uploaded onto YouTube’s site and viewed more than 1.5 billion times.
Here is the full article.
What do you think? Have you ever visited YouTube? Do you think Viacom has a legitimate case?
slow the google machine down
>>slow the google machine down >>
That’s the way to decide legal issues, all right. “Who do I like the best?”
The American Indian thought the concept of ownership of the land was rediculous. Now we have ownership of intellectual property. Everything in the world is about ownership. We are destroying the earth in the name of ownership.
I think it has gone far enough. It is all about stripping money from the public and holding the person as a slave to owners.
In the middle ages they owned the castle and the land. Now they own an image on a tv screen.
I favor the idea of the American Indians. Ownership is not a good idea.
There is some heavy destruction going on today with ownership of the genes of plants. Just like the American Indians we thought there could not be ownership of the plants, but now big corporate america wants ownership of everything.
Of course they want no responsibility for the damage their products do to the environment or to people. They want only the income and not the responsibility.
Look at good old Halliburton. Moved to UAE to avoid taxes after raping the American public in Iraq.
So google (giant corporate entity, fyi) should have the right to freely profit from other peoples works that required creativity, time and investment? How is this fair in any way?
Lol, Sumner Redstone decided that he didn’t have enough money so he wants to take it from Google. Viacom and Youtube held talks about revenue sharing for six months but couldn’t come to an agreement, after which Youtube took down lots of content.
Whether Viacom’s lawsuit will succeed or not will depend on how well Youtube has complied with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is a portion of the DCMA. If Youtube can show the court that it has complied with the Act, then Youtube will be protected under the “safe harbor” provision of the Act. For anyone interested in the details of the Act, google Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act+wikipedia.
>>The American Indian thought the concept of ownership of the land was rediculous. Now we have ownership of intellectual property. Everything in the world is about ownership. We are destroying the earth in the name of ownership.
>>
Well, this is a novel approach. Stealing someone else’s stuff is saving the earth. It’s almost like your patriotic duty. (Brother!)
What’s land got to do with it? Even the Indians believed that they owned the things that they personally created. You’re not making any sense here, just trying to rationalize away misconduct.
“So google (giant corporate entity, fyi) should have the right to freely profit from other peoples works that required creativity, time and investment? How is this fair in any way?”
It isn’t really, but Anonymous 3 isn’t thinking about Google profitting, he just wants to benefit unfairly himself, and has made up some rinky-dink rationalization about how copyright infringement is somehow making a statement against Halliburton, and other such nonsense. He’d sing a different tune if he himself was the one being robbed, naturally.
Yeah, the outcome of the case will depend on how well Google has complied with the niceties of copyright law which most of us know almost nothing about. Susan asking us what WE think about it is ridiculous. Almost none of us have the technical expertise to know.
How could posting some video clips that would have otherwise been forgotten possibly hurt Viacom? I guess once UTube got bought by Google all bets are off. This is just a power play by Viacom. Let’s wait and see if this concept is going to work before letting our Lawyers loose
It is like fighting someone over your garbage once you realize they can recycle it and make money of it. We should all start suing to get some money back from our recycled garbage.
Nobody is forcing Sumner Redstone to make those movies. David Letterman pays expensive writers to make up the jokes he tells on his late night TV show. He sells advertising on the show, people watch the show, laugh at the jokes, see the ads, and buy the advertised stuff. The advertisers use the money to buy more ads from David Letterman, and David Letterman uses the ad money to pay his writers, etc.
So what happens if someone watches the Letterman show, then at lunch the next day they tell their co-workers some of the jokes? Steeeeallllling!!!! Those co-workers get to hear the jokes without seeing the ads! How is David Letterman going to pay his writers??? Quick, congress must take action! Anyone who tells their co-workers a joke that they heard on TV, must be sued for a billion dollars and go to jail!!!!
I have a different idea. If David Letterman’s business plan relies on nobody telling anyone else the jokes they hear on his show, then his plan is no good and he should find a different one instead. He does not have the authority to stop people from communicating with each other any way they like (unless they have signed agreements with him or something like that). If he doesn’t want people repeating jokes that they hear from him, he should not tell the jokes on TV in the first place. If he chooses to tell them, he should stop whining about them being “stolen”; he’s the one that put them out there for everyone to hear and repeat.
Same thing in chess. If Susan figures out a crushing counterattack for Black in the Ruy Lopez, can she stop other people from playing it once she publishes it? Have they stolen it? If she plays the white side of the Ruy, can she have the FBI force her opponents to play inferior lines as black instead of using her counterattack against her?
It is the same way with Sumner Redstone. The movie studios tried to get VCR’s banned in the 1980’s but failed in the courts. Now it’s the same thing all over again. The movie studios want to make it illegal to publish on the internet without supplying identifying info, even though we have a Constitutional right to publish anonymously (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission). If they get what they want, Susan will not be allowed to run this blog and allow people to post comments, unless she or Blogger checks their ID so the movie studios and government can go after people who post forbidden things.
The bottom line is that the right to communicate freely is more important than the existence of the movies. If we have to choose between closing down Susan’s blog and closing down Hollywood, I’d say close down Hollywood. Being able to talk to each other, one human being to another, is much more important than receiving crap from corporations that only flows in one direction.
>>How could posting some video clips that would have otherwise been forgotten possibly hurt Viacom?>>
You’re making it up as you go along. The law isn’t based on whether you personally disapprove or approve. Especially since your approval is coloured by the fact that you personally plan to benefit from the theft of the material.
If you want to ask whether a bank robber is guilty, his accomplice isn’t exactly the most unbiased source.
>>It is like fighting someone over your garbage once you realize they can recycle it and make money of it. We should all start suing to get some money back from our recycled garbage.>>
No, it’s not. As should be obvious. The stuff I put out at the curb in my garbage can is garbage. Because I threw it away. The stuff I have up in my closet is not garbage, and you have no right to try to steal it from me on the grounds that you think I haven’t looked at it in too long. Get serious.
>>So what happens if someone watches the Letterman show, then at lunch the next day they tell their co-workers some of the jokes? Steeeeallllling!!!!
>>
Calm yourself, and try to educate yourself before speaking. The lawsuit has nothing to do with repeating dialogue word-of-mouth, and therefore none of your arguments have anything to do with the issue at hand.
“Nobody is forcing Sumner Redstone to make those movies.”
Hey, good argument. Just like if I steal your car, well, nobody forced you to buy it in the first place.
Sheesh.
no one will pay to hear you tell a joke, but when letterman tells it, the joke is worth something. stealing is stealing and if you can’t realize that then shouldn’t you still be in kindergarden learning your right from wrong?
Youtube is reminiscent of early Napster…full of copyrighted material. These are the good old days for Youtube.
Yeah, it is Napster with videos. It’s fun while it lasts, but it is stealing. Still, who knows. Once the real owners of this stuff find there’s a market for old clips, the same thing might happen as with Napster, and there might be a service for getting it legally.
Susan asked:
Do you think Viacom has a legitimate case?
Under the current copyright laws Viacom does have a legitimate case. However, with the emergence of the internet those copyright laws are under crushing pressure. The situation is similar, as if hundred dollar bills would be laying on the sidewalk of 5th Avenue and the law would be that the tens of thousands of people who are passing by, can’t pick up any of those bills. Perhaps the law would be theoretically, ethically correct, but unrealistic.
The same with the music, film, books, pictures, etc. and the internet. The phenomenon seems unstoppable for now. No question, it is unfair for all those who come up with intellectual property and instead of being able to sell it for good money, a great percentage of that becomes public domain. Yet, it appears that all those who try to sue, just delaying the (currently) inevitable.
I don’t know what would be the correct solution. On one hand why would somebody write music, books, poetry, make beautiful pictures, films, yet unable to make a reasonable living out of it, on the other hand how will these corporations plan to stop internet itself?
A true dilemma.
Gabor
The situation is similar, as if hundred dollar bills would be laying on the sidewalk of 5th Avenue and the law would be that the tens of thousands of people who are passing by, can’t pick up any of those bills. Perhaps the law would be theoretically, ethically correct, but unrealistic.
>>
Nah. Bills lying on the sidewalk have no particular owner. The situation is more like people who want to rob the house of someone who doesn’t lock his door. With declining ethics, people not only can’t resist, but have more convoluted rationalizations to convince themselves that it’s okay. It’s not only theoretically correct, but obviously correct to prohibit it.