Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman on Google's 'rogue company'
SAN FRANCISCO--Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman doesn't typically bash Google in the press.
While Google CEO Eric Schmidt has publicly ridiculed Viacom for filing a $1 billion copyright claim against Google and YouTube, Dauman is usually more reserved.
But at a small press gathering Monday night in San Francisco, Dauman discussed some of the events that led up to the lawsuit and what he sees as wrong with Google's handling of the entertainment industry. (I wasn't taking direct notes, so I'll paraphrase most of what he said.)
First, Dauman noted that one of the first meetings he had after taking over as Viacom's chief executive in September 2006 was with Schmidt. Dauman said he and his managers were relieved when Google purchased YouTube for $1.7 billion in October of the same year because up to that point, they had considered YouTube a "rogue company."
He was referring, of course, to all the unauthorized clips from feature films and TV shows that appear on YouTube.
Dauman said he was sure Viacom would eventually cut a deal with Google and was disappointed when the two companies failed to reach an agreement. But his disappointment turned into something else when clips from Comedy Central, MTV, and Paramount Pictures--all owned by Viacom--continued to accumulate on YouTube.
"You can't just take it from us," Dauman said. He added that he believed Google's strategy all along was to defy copyright owners just as long as it took to "dominate the space."
He argues Google didn't do anything to prevent piracy on YouTube because it helped draw a massive audience.
If Dauman is correct, then the strategy worked. YouTube has more than 70 million monthly unique viewers. No video site on the Web comes close.
What about the risk of lawsuits? Google has plenty of money and probably considered the $1 billion it would have to pay Viacom should it lose in court as an acceptable risk, Dauman speculated. The case isn't scheduled to go to trial until sometime next year.
Dauman said Google, which has been open about its struggles to generate revenue from YouTube, may have difficulties negotiating content deals with Hollywood in the future unless it changes its negotiating strategy.
Dauman, whose son works for Google, said Google's unwillingness to bend in negotiations has led to a sparsity of legal premium content on YouTube. Google must learn the value of "making friends" and the necessity to give as well as take, Dauman said.
Google has always said it respects copyright and is working on filtering systems to help eliminate pirated content. Indeed, Google does appear to be making peace with some of the studios.
Last week, Lionsgate struck a content partnership with YouTube that is unprecedented among the major Hollywood studios.
Sources have told CNET News that more such deals are on the way.
- Topics:
-
Advertising and marketing
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Now that is just lughable. Google "respects" copyright, like a rapist respects his victim. The fact of the matter is that Google has never respected anyone's intrellectual property, irrespective of whether it's tv programs, or newspaper content. In the EU, Google has been sued by several publications in France and Belgium as well. Meanwhile, of course Google has kept the algorithms of their search code tro themselves, because "its their ip, and they worked hard for it". Fair enoough, but then so did everyone else. Google continues to remain one of the greatest forces for evil on the planet. They are nothing but a bunch of thieves.
The problem with Viacom and other studios is their understanding of technology, which is probably at a junior high school level, at best. They don't have a clue about what is possible or not possible, so they rely on lobbyists and lawyers to attack those who do understand technology.
Your analogy is not correct. Google owns the website, and lets anybody post videos. They can not look at the millions of posts to determine if any of them are infringing somebody's copyright. If you own a house, you don't let anybody put stuff there, and if you are there are on a regular basis, you will most likely notice the cocaine.
There have been many articles written about Google's losses on You-tube, and the CEO Schmidt recently said they haven't figured out how to profit from it. They don't run many ads on it, it's nothing like google's search engine.
If they don't like Google way, they have to find a way into iTunes Store.
DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity.
... or at least she is starting to melt!
Wow ... I would say this is very good news to the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.
I have been following this case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?
In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either").
It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.
Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.
Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.
I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country, - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on - haven't we seen it all?
What do they all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam it all back here to the states."
Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson wasn't already in the 'Public Domain'?"
Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.
"What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"
This activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING in concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.
I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.
As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.
Congratulations New York. Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way who have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered") copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.
... which old witch ... the wicked witch!
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com