Viacom won't soon shed image as corporate bully

Despite winning an important legal victory against Google last week, Viacom's public image is taking a beating.

Ever since Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, filed a $1 billion copyright suit against Google's YouTube last year, Google has won kudos for championing the rights of Internet users. On the other side, Viacom was blasted by critics who accused it of trying to lock down information and block people from enjoying South Park and The Daily Show.

Neither of these two perceptions is entirely accurate. But what is true is that there is little Viacom--or any other big media firm trying to enforce its copyright online--can do to avoid being saddled with the image of a corporate bully. Companies considering whether to follow Viacom's lead should carefully weigh the risks of potentially alienating consumers.

Last week, Viacom was widely criticized on the Web after a judge ordered Google to turn over information that included YouTube usernames, Internet Protocol addresses and the viewing histories of YouTube's users. Viacom representatives denied that the company had ever requested any personally identifiable information.

By then, the damage was done. Viacom was branded an enemy of the Internet and of privacy. This kind of public relations drubbing shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Advantage: Google
Look at what Viacom is up against. Many Internet users have simply come to think of free Internet content as their right. Any attempt to restrict access is perceived as an attack on Web freedom. Google, which has a long history of facing down copyright owners, including book publishers, newspapers, and Hollywood studios, has earned respect from those who see content owners as money grubbers and many copyright laws as anti-consumer.

Google is also savvy when it comes to public-relations scuffles, say critics. Not all of Viacom's image problems are self inflicted, says Louis Solomon, an attorney representing a group of copyright holders who have sued YouTube for copyright infringement and are working with Viacom.

"I think there is little doubt that Google has been trying to be effective in its use of the press," Solomon said. "How else do you explain why they have been collecting and using IP addresses to monetize their site (for a while now), yet only now, with great self righteousness, claim to be concerned about producing IP addresses?"

Responding to Solomon's assertion, Ricardo Reyes, a Google spokesman, said Viacom's ailing public image can be traced to another Google advantage.

"The law is on our side," he said.

A judge will be the one to determine that. What is more certain is that Google has been more willing than Viacom to debate the case in public.

Last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt made news several times by suggesting that Viacom was overly litigious. At a conference in April, Schmidt said this about Viacom: "You're either doing business with them or being sued by them."

At a retreat for media and tech CEOs, Schmidt claimed Viacom was a company "built on lawsuits."

And this week, Viacom's supporters, such as Solomon, accused Google of helping to whip up controversy over the privacy issue.

Google-Viacom deal in the offing?
On Monday evening, sources close to the discussions between Google and Viacom said they were close to reaching an agreement which would allow YouTube to redact IP addresses and usernames.

Did the bad PR affect Viacom's decision? A company's public image certainly can impact business.

Companies dueling it out in court often hire public relations firms to take their case to the masses. They may sense that their opponent is sensitive to negative press. A well-designed PR strategy can hurt the other guy's bottom line, and possibly bring on a settlement.

One way Viacom could instantly improve relations with Internet users is to simply drop the lawsuit, according to Erick Hachenburg, the CEO of Metacafe, a video-sharing rival of YouTube's.

Hachenburg argues that content companies have to decide between one of two ways to handle copyright issues on the Web.

He said the first way is the one chosen by Hulu, the video portal created by News Corp. and NBC Universal. Hulu allows users share videos and the company has syndicated content across the Web (Viacom has traditionally preferred to host its own content but has recently been boosting the number of syndication deals).

The alternative to the Hulu-esque strategy is to follow in the footsteps of the Recording Industry Association of America and solve problems with lawsuits.

"I hope Viacom doesn't use the (YouTube user) information to sue consumers," Hachenburg said. "Clearly there is an underlying question: how much do you want to adapt your strategy to live in Web. 2.0? Hulu is embracing Web 2.0 ideas, and I think they are finding success."

[qquidd]

Viacom's image has taken a beating only in the minds of CNET editors and a few online fools who think that they run the world and that Google and Apple are gods.

Who is going to stop little girls from watching MTV and stop watching Paramount pictures. Sorry, kiddo, Viacom knows exactly what it is doing and this thing shall soon blow over.

Why, did AT&T/Apple lose any iPhone sales -- you do remember that AT&T handed over all your data to feds (not just IP addresses).

[Cheesum]

This is ridiculous. Why should Viacom take a beating? It has been reported in this and other fine periodicals that Google retains information on browsers and intends to hold the information for decades. Additionally, there have been other court cases ordering Google to supply the info.

Any user who didn't know their information would be shared at some future date had their head in the sand. It's like a driver who didn't know that cameras photograph their license plate when they drive through the tollbooth. For this reason, I've used browsers that don't retain the data for more than a day or two (yes, they're out there). This reported "beating" is a PR stunt by Google or someone with a vested interest in the ruling. As a side note: I have no vested interest in either company (I work in healthcare).

[deez1]

I can accept that Google retains my browsing history but this information should not be strewn about at any corporation that requests it. BTW will you give me your ISP address and tell me the 3 most embarrassing website you have ended up on. While you are at it, please give me the credit card info from your last online purchase. I didn't think so.

[ssaikia]

FREE INTERNET CONTENT IS NOT A RIGHT

While I agree that current copyright laws are anti-innovation and therefore anti-consumer, the fact is that they are still laws. Google (through Youtube) is enabling consumers to violate copyright laws. The answer to fixing copyright laws is Creative Commons which allows content creators flexibility in determining level of protection. The answer to Viacom's issue is that either Google or consumers are at fault for violating current copyright laws.

[snoonw]

VIACOM IS GONNA DIE. utube is killing mtv vh1 becoz most ppl dont want to watch the **** they play there.
Even if they improve the programmin on their channels ppl just have many more and better options then they ever had.
MTV is running scared no wonder they filin baseless lawsuits

[notgustopunk]

Why is it not mentioned here that Viacom now offers EVERY episode of South Park and The Daily Show (both mentioned above) FOR FREE on their OWN websites? I'd say they don't have anything against people watching their stuff for free, they just want to make sure its done right.

[Dragon_Myr]

Viacom has a lot more to worry about than what's going on with this Google fight. Over at least the past decade they seem to be self destructing. From the CBS breakup to the collapse of Paramount amusement parks, Viacom seems to be screwing up at almost every turn except for a couple of decent movies and shows. They should be protecting their property, yes, but doing so in such a way to give the opposition numerous sound bytes and mudslinging opportunities without responses is foolish. Their inability to meet the new internet media mediums adequately leaves Viacom in a situation where this might happen all over again with another site in the near future and looking like an obsolete dinosaur which is an image this legal battle further promotes.

[deez1]

True. I think the CEO is a dinosaur

[pixelm]

The comments here are right . . . you need to do BOTH - make your content available, and defend yourself against people who steal it. Hulu HAS licensed content from Viacom. How can it survive with licensed content (that costs $$$) if they are competing against a company that steals it! Google has taken the bigger bath here - people want to know why Google has all that user data and what they are doing with it.

[tacobates]

Are you kidding me?!?!?? Viacom has suffered HUGE image deterioration in the eyes of most people under 30.
People under 30 comprise about a third of IN-COUNTRY economic stimulation (possibly more, due to people over 30 buying things for or in behalf of those under 30). As these people grow, they consume more of the overall economy... Viacom would be wise not to tick them off.

[i_am_still_wade]

Viacom is doing the right thing but going about it wrong. You don't try to put a nail in with a sledgehammer, but that is what Viacom is doing. Instead of suing Google, they should work with Google to develop some way prevent their material from appearing on YouTube. And Viacom needs to continue putting more and more shows on the web and get the word out how to watch it legal and free. Of course, the media giants love to sue and hate to solve problems. Viacom will win, but it will not stop the problem. If Viacom worked with Google, it would solve the problem and Viacom would win.

[srichey321]

I've talked to my niece about these types of issue and her opinion does not bode well for corporations like VIACOM. My impression is that this issue runs a lot deeper then copyright infringement and that its more about controlling information. People under 30 are used to information/media being free and easily accessible, the current business model for companies like VIACOM is going to have to change. Here is a quote from an interesting article at:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-digital-music-2007.ars

An anecdote in a recent Economist perfectly summed up the problems facing the major music labels. After EMI, the smallest of the Big Four, invited a teen focus group to its London headquarters in 2006, it wanted to give the teens something for their time. The response is worth quoting in full.

At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.

[wilywondr]

I am surprised to see no mention of the hit that viacom stock has been taking. Some of it may not be related to this issue, but I tend to believe that investors are smarter than viacom gives them credit for. The viacom stock had an extremely high volume on July 3(the day this judges ruling hit) and it also set the 52 week low on that day(although they have since broken that low). Companies that make their revenue by relying on the convoluted interpretation of the US copyright laws need to understand that that revenue stream is ending. As judges and jurys come to realize how the internet works and how currupt these media companies/cartels have been in their arguments for copyright protection fewer and fewer decisions will be going their way. These media companies/cartels have been relying on uninformed judges and jurys to get the decisions they have gotten for the past 8 years. You may disagree with my assessment, but the internet is a media delivery tool that is not going away and attempts to stifle a particular site or delivery technique will only be met by 5 alternative sites or delivery techniques. Napster getting shut down in 2001 ended mp3 filesharing didn't it?

[leepe]

Consumers have the right and the power...Remember Metallica!

That is what could happen to Viacom's products and ultimately revenue.

One thing, if I was handling PR for CBS I would damn sure delineate how separate it is from Viacom.

[brumiller]

Viacom is an old cash cow and when "RED" billionaire passes, the empire will disburse. Was it just so long ago when the FCC allowed Murdock, Red, Disney, Time Warner to take control of the airways. Even the news has been subverted and controlled by a few on the TV. TV is a dead medium for the next generation. This will cause demand for and a flock to the internet, web and other digital forms of entertainment. Forced "intelligent " (oxymoron TV) property rights" will be just another form of entertainment amongf a myraid of choices possible The next generation will not stand for the privacy rights to be stomped by octogenerian businessmen and their twenty something trophy wifes. The Jedi returns.
BRUMILLER

[scrushmaster]

VIACOM can feel the pain by major stock holders pulling their stocks and investing in another company. I took out, lets just say a large portion, that will actually ding them pretty well, large enough to notice. :)

[jjoensuu]

I exactly agree as to that "Viacom's image has taken a beating only in the minds of CNET editors and a few online fools who think that they run the world and that Google and Apple are gods".

In fact it would not surprise if Google has paid for this article. Money talks, and something else walks.

The problem with Google is that they gather large amounts of data about peoples on-line behavior, and then claim to be concerned about peoples privacy. But tracking peoples on-line behavious IS a breach of their privacy.

Unfortunately changing just the web browser will not help, as Google tracks the data provided about the user on the web server side.

[isguroo]

I guess if you mailed all the VHS and DVDs back to Viacom, you'd end up without a great number of film titles in your personal media store. If you buy hardware and software designed to recordd your purchased products to the device - you'd better not publish them or, God forbid they use some marker in the files that will cause them to be null in a few years anyway...

Technology changes so fast we went from Betamax to BlueRAY and now its going to be streamed to my PC digitally. - Hmmm.. I seem to recall items recorded to VHS being allowed. I guess the fine print and understanding of the content doesn't add up to the bottom line to some companies.

If they published media in a format unrecordable, they'd still have to add metal and electronic detectors to theaters to keep these Xvid folks from recording tops of heads between pop-corn grabs.. We all know this is a case and movies end up online before they reach DVD now.

If you really want to control your product, start at the place they sell the $3 candy, $9 cokes and or $21 combo pack - That's where the free video comes from. Digital recording devised are allowed to record items at a PC now because the software and hardware purchased at some store allows it - Control that and you have some of your toys back.

Do all that controlling and most people will not view your movies and read the fine print as to who owns the subsid company.

I'm just mad because I now have to see who the owners of Hancock are.. ;)

Would like to go see it but, might wait now and get the $5 DVD... LOL...

You'd have made better press viacom if you'd took on technology and added video to downloand and stream only - You want youtube to stop, buy them and you sell the video. :)

Maybe I sound like I condone the practice; no.. It's just been going on for years and now you complain.. I question your motives waiting for a huge customer base database to send out your info too.

I guess we'll all see if our junk mail jumps a bit after you get thru crying over somthing you should have moved on when it first hit the street.

imho

[badasscat]

Well I see one thing Viacom's doing to try to improve their image: they've got the paid shills out in force on the major blogs. (Anyone who doesn't think all large corporations do this doesn't work for a large corporation.)

How can you defend Viacom when their lawsuit has no basis in law whatsoever? The people doing the uploading are the ones they should be suing. In fact, it was Viacom themselves that was one of the companies that agreed to the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. You can't be an "indian giver" when it comes to the law, agreeing to one thing and then 5-10 years later suing anyway.

[bigfootrockymtn]

srichey321, your post concerns me. The biggest problem with today's Internet-savvy youth is that they don't feel they should be held accountable for theft, which is exactly what's going on here. Theft is theft. Plain and simple. Sure, "people under 30 are used to information/media being free and accessible," but you and your niece are clearly blind when it comes to copyright law. If you continue to let this happen and provide free content, how do you propose the entertainers/industry get paid?
YouTube has made a killing from allowing the illegal posts of content that never has and never will belong to it. This is just as much the fault of the consumers posting the content as it is YouTube's fault. However, I think Viacom learned from the RIAA and decided that going after the consumer is an expensive and fruitless effort (and a bad PR move), so why not go after the one that's allowed this to happen for so many years?
I fully support Viacom. If this type of activity continues, we'll soon not have to worry about people illegally posting content because there won't be any content to post! Then who would you blame?

[The_Decider]

Copyright infringement is not theft. Only an idiot or paid shill(they are idiots too) would say that. Who the hell would want crappy CD's from a crappy major label? The major labels are the thieves. The musicians don't get paid much at all from a CD sale. Musicians can offer their music online and keep 100% of the money, instead of the 12 cents for a CD sale.The major labels are dinosaurs. They have no use anymore. Good riddance!

[brumiller]

Google has not figured out how to make youtube profitable. U-TUBE is not making anything.

[The_Decider]

Viacom(as are all major media companies) are thieves. Google has massive issues, especially privacy problems but that doesn't let crappy companies like Viacom off the hook. Google fairly recently bought YouTube, before that Viacom didn't show signs of law suits. This is just a pack of thieves looking for another payday they didn't earn.

[Dormon8]

This is wrong and is against our privacy rights.

One of the reasons why this is a problem is now that Viacom has your phone number and hame address they could start suing people individually for uploading a six minute video of SpongBob Squarepants

Another problem is Viacom doesn't have the same internet security against hackers.
google.com and youtube.com have devoted their companies to keep their info safe from users, but now that Viacom has all our info it would be much easier for people to hack into their computers and get all our info.

its just stupid that one company that has an internet video site is willing to sue another company and get all their users info just because their losing money over a couple of south park clips.