Comments on: Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman on Google's 'rogue company'

Viacom chief says Google has an inability to bend in negotiations with Hollywood and suggests it was always Google's strategy to ignore piracy on YouTube so the site could "dominate the space."

[dascha1]

The reality is, how you treat good ideas and the key employees who manage them. For example, I gave a presentation to their VOD arm some years ago using DRM as part of the model. They liked it and escalated the solution to their bosses. Result? I called two weeks later only to find out their VP had been fired and the organization was being restructured. Then again, it wasn't my fault that it happened!

[Kwasiowusu]

"Google has always said it respects copyright "
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.

[pjhenry1216]

Newspaper's revenue only benefited from Google. You don't understand they're both benefiting from the symbiotic relationship here. Remember when people had to pay for commercials? Now Viacom is getting them for free. But thats not enough. They want to be paid too. Viacom is upset Google is making money while helping Viacom make money. Viacom wants to be the sole money-maker here. Google offers a service, Viacom offers content. One isn't infringing on the other at all. Its people like you and Viacom that are destroying the industry, not Google. You're just too foolish and greedy to realize it.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ pjhenry1216, newspapers benefit from Google stealing their content do they? is that why most newspapers have been sufering from falling sales, falling profits, huge layoffs and falling stock prices, since Google started taking their stuff, and putting it on Google's own Google News site, without asking as much as "by your leave"?. What you seem to be overlooking is that the newspapers in France, Belgium etc, sued Google ,because not only was Google taking their stuff that they had worked hard and spent money to produce, Google was putting other people's stuff on Google news, and gatting the traffic to Google news, without the originators of the articles getting any traffic or benefit from it. Google reminds me of Heorge Orwell's "Animal Farm", and Eric Schmidt is like "Napoleon" from "Animal Farm" Eric Schmidt is doing the same things, and a heck of a lot worse than he used to accused Microsoft of doing when he was at Sun Micrososystems. The Google "cure" is a lot worse than the original ailement.

[kgsbca]

There's one (at least) problem with Dauman's summation of Google's attitude on you-tube: google doesn't make any money on all those clips, and doesn't have a plan to do so in the future, whether or not it dominates that market. It's not easy to filter out copyrighted content, even for a company with the technical prowess of google. If it was easy to identify videos that are protected by copyright, I think that google could develop a viable business model.

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.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ kgsbca, Google does not have the ability to filter out illegal content so it makes it alright does it? That is like a guy that is found with 100 kilos of cocaine in his house saying he didn't put it there, and he had no way of stopping anyone fro the street from putting it there, even tho said cocaine has been in plain view if sight for the past 6 months, and he continued to use the cocaine himself. Of course Google profits from all the illegal content at Youtube. Its the reason Youtube has such high traffic, and whatever money Google makes from Youtube now is based on the huge traffic they generate, based on other people's ip.

[rapier1]

You wrote "google doesn't make any money on all those clips, and doesn't have a plan to do so in the future"

Except for those *ads* its selling every time you look at a video. Google makes money by providing low cost or free content and displaying ads. Why would its model change for you tube?

[michaelo1966]

Viacom needs Google's user base and know-how more than Google needs pirated clips from Viacom. Viacom better strike a deal or they'll be left w/ nobody to sell ads to in ten years, at which point they'll probably whine and ask for bailout legislation of some sort.

[kgsbca]

@kwasiowusu, I was commenting on viacom's ability to assess the situation, which is limited. Google is complying with the law, by removing all content once the copyright holder informs them of the infringement. They are not obligated to check everything out themselves, only the content they post.

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.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ kgsbca, Oh yes Google can and should take down copyrighted stuff that is stolen and posted on their site. It's no use prentding that people stealing stuff, and putting it on Google's sites, have nothing to do with Google. Of course it has everything to do with Google. If I remember correctly, Microsoft took down their own video sharing site for some time, just so they culd remove all copyrighted stuff, and develop the technology and set in place procedures to stop pirated stuff from being posted on Microsoft's video sharing site. But of course Google would never do a thiung like that. Google thinks they are above the law, and can ride roughshod over everyone else. Google may be making losses on Youtube, but they are generating revenue from Youtube, and a lot of it is from the traffic they are generating from putting other companies stuff on their site.

[Znatok]

Viacom - company of whiners

[Znatok]

Viacom - company of whiners

If they don't like Google way, they have to find a way into iTunes Store.

[jackdaniels08]

Dauman has repeatedly accused Google of 'taking' from Viacom according to this reporter. Google is NOT taking from anybody.and Google DOES respect the law. People are posting these clips and Google removes those clips within which is defined by the law. Dauman has a background in law and should not be so crass as to make misleading false statements. Here is a clarification memo unless he or any doubter had not received it in the last decade according to the DMCA.

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.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ jackdaniels08 Google can no more claim, that copyrighted stuff posted on their site, is not their responsibility, than the old Napstar could get away with the same thing. And we all know what happened to the old Napstar in court. It?s the same old ?we are the new economy, and these old laws were nor designed for people like us? arrogance, and cavalier attitude to other people?s property, that was displayed by the old Nasptar , that is being shown by Google right now. Well luckily, the courts are there to stop this kind of nonsense.. It will be a real pleasure to see Viacom take Google down in court.

[Griddick]

Ding dong ... the witch is dead!

... 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.

[e-mail]