Everyone's a judge in Viacom v. Google
By now, most readers are probably familiar with the criticisms spurred by this week's gigantic new copyright lawsuit. Observers on both sides are vocal: Some say Viacom's squelching creativity and missing out on capturing an audience for free; others call Google arrogant and flagrantly ambitious to think it can successfully defend a copyright maverick.
In a somewhat similar copyright-infringement case nearly 10 years ago, Napster fried in court for distributing someone else's proprietary materials for free. Is Google convinced, as CNET's Declan McCullagh points out, that the outdated file-sharing law may not apply to its situation? Or are those at the top of the company betting that the EFF and others have made enough progress that their wins will carry over into a favorable overhaul of digital rights management and fair use legislation?
Viacom vs. Google could someday be regarded as a historic case that defined the difference between tightly controlled old media and virally distributed new media. Forbes' Louis Hau stops short of calling it a landmark case, but agrees that it "marks a milestone for Internet video, as it moves from novelty to bona-fide business." Hau goes on to propose a combination of factors that pushed Viacom over the edge from potential partner to plaintiff, including Google/YouTube's revenue sharing terms and new Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman's aggressive agenda.
And CNET News.com's own Elinor Mills reports that the copyright suit is one among many against Google (remember the book publishers?), and is only one weapon in Viacom's arsenal of hardball negotiation tactics.
Speculations are spinning: Is the real issue intellectual property or predatory lawsuits? Why did Viacom sue the dickens out of YouTube and partner with upstart file-sharer Joost instead? Does Viacom think its in-house boutique sites are going to generate more audience interest than a central supermarket like YouTube? Will Washington be hard or soft on fair use?
And as CNET's Seth Rosenblatt has asked, if Viacom wins its suit, will it distribute the awarded money to its Comedy Central writers or its legal team?
Here's what some bloggers and CNET users are saying:
"No one can control the Internet, especially in the way media content used to be controllable before the digital age.?? Suppose Viacom won all their terms and YouTube was shut down. Well guess what, folks--the Internet moves on with or without YouTube, and media pirates will find a new home to collaborate all their stashes with each other, and you can rest assured someone somewhere will find a way to profit off it. And worse yet, after all this litigation, time, money and other resources are wasted, and absolutely nothing has been accomplished."
--CNET Talkback user phantomsoul
" The first rule if you are going to sue someone is "Do they have deep pockets?"?? If the answer to rule 1 is yes, one does not need to even consider points 2 through 10, which deal with trivialities like whether anyone was harmed. The prospect of having a "jury of peers" consisting of housewives and retired sanitation workers (both honorable professions) located in Viacom's home town to make a decision on a billion-dollar windfall to their local company would seem to motivate Google to consider a nuisance payment."
--CNET Talkback user TomMariner
"Hey, dorks, I have a huge idea for you. Sue Google, because that will force the world??s most important search engine to probably have to pull any references to Viacom and all its connections off the search engine. You know, because some lawyer told them to, since they are being sued."
--Dvorak Uncensored
"By "opting out" of YouTube exposure, (Viacom) is taking their content away from where people search for it; and they are largely removing accessibility to search engines. Further, they take on the mantle of providing the content (the transcoding, storage, maintenance, bandwidth and site design) all at cost to them.
"
--CNET Talkback user FellowConspirator
