Comments on: Google says Viacom's suit 'threatens' Net

Legal response says Viacom's rewritten suit "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the Web.

[gerrrg]

If you want to toss aside preconceived thoughts about how things are supposed to be, it's not hard to see that Viacom and other content owners make it difficult for anyone to view their content. Like water, content flows through the channels of least resistance. Block Youtube and a dozen other sites will pop up while another dozen will be contemplating the next generation of distribution. By filing a lawsuit against Youtube, Viacom accomplishes the exact opposite of what they want, which is to get paid for their content. The RIAA is failing so badly in trying to restrain how content is distributed, by the time these lawsuits finally reach their end, it'll be a lifetime in terms of technological change. The bottom line is that the old dinosaur does not understand how to respond in modern times, where content delivery is being measured by the speed of light.

[VerifyMe]

Disregarding the legal issues for a moment, I like your water analogy. Viacom is doing the equivalent of trying to dam up the Mississippi after a rainfall. Eventually the levy's gonna break and what chance that Viacom had of letting the water run through proper channels will be gone and what they will have on their hands is a major flood.

What it ultimately comes down to is that Viacom does not want to share control of their content with Google or anyone else. What they want is for content viewers to come to Viacom's media channels and view it the way that Viacom dictates. Period.

[Lerianis]

If Viacom doesn't like the fact that clips of their TV shows are showing up on Youtube and Google Video without their permission, they should just make a deal with Youtube and Google Video that they will provide them copies of their most popular shows for a nominal fee.
That is the answer to this conundrum, not suing Youtube and Google out of existence.

[groink_hi]

LOL! This is the VERY logic people have that I find disturbing. Many of these company form their business models around copyright infringement because they know that the ONLY way to resolve the issue is for the content owner to make a deal. It's legal bribery and mafia-like hustling if you ask me. Companies should not even be allowed to start up like this. It is like drugs - you find the house who's distributing the drugs, and then you take away ownership of the house. They should do the same thing with companies. It is disgusting!

[Zimm2]

I see Google essentially fencing stolen property. All videos posted are easily viewable... and Google is making money off the transactions. It's not like the Postal Service or FedEx where packaging obscures the true nature of the contents.

To me it's fairly clear cut; I hope the courts see it that way.

[VerifyMe]

I feel your logic is flawed. Google, in this case, would be the property owner on whose property "criminals" have chosen to share their copyright videos. Sort of like how, in New York City, "criminals" have chosen to sell bootleg copies of cds and dvds on Canal street. Sure it's illegal and the city cracks down and makes some busts now and then but you'll never be rid of that activity forever. I think Viacom has as much sense in suing Google as they do the city of New York.

[gerrrg]

Content is like water...it will follow the path of least resistance. Viacom pushes back on Youtube, distribution will find other means and methods, because this is what people want: to easily view content, and for free (whether ad-supported or illegally). Even with aggregate sites such as Hulu, not all content is openly available through legal means. You can't expect to create a fan base, and then hold back on how that fan base can access your content and what content they can access. Viacom can file as many lawsuits as they want to, but continuing to do so means that they're not focused on getting paid for their content by creating equitable means of access and distribution. The more they try to block, the more people will find alternate means to get around their interference...and not pay Viacom and other content owners. That's just my observation of what's going on.

[expatincebu]

This lawsuit and other like it by "content" providers has only served to insure that I NEVER BUY THEIR CONTENT and always get it pirated for free.

[expatincebu]

This lawsuit and other like it by "content" providers has only served to insure that I NEVER BUY THEIR CONTENT and always get it pirated for free.

[cason3981]

[technick²]

I'm hoping to see Goggle finally loose some money. They ripped me off by unfairly disabling my AdSense account last year and taking the $300 in it. If there was some kind of problem with the ads and / or my website, they should've notified me with some questions instead of some prewritten "Your account has been disabled" message.

On a more related note, they need to better enforce their terms of service and apprehend that users aren't going to flag / report a pirated video, as someone watching it doesn't want it to be removed. Maybe they need to have employees moderate their content more.

[411Tuber]

I'm a big fan of YouTube and Google for that matter, and I pretty much despise Viacom, HOWEVER unfortunately I think Viacom is in the right here. Technically YouTube is not making money on the copyrighted clips (there are no ads on those pages ) however YouTube is leveraging these to become the "go to" place for all things video. Which allows for future monetization opportunities. I don't see a way out of this for them, but I hope they find a way

[BIGELLOW]

Those who think Viacom is in the right clearly do not understand how the Internet works and why the Safe Harbor law was created in the first place. When anyone creates a website anywhere... visitors have to hop through several different points hosted by several different organizations to get to the content. The Safe Harbor law was created so that only the individual who uploaded the content can be to blame, not the intermediaries. The catch is, the intermediaries have to respond to requests (as per the DMCA) to take down content if it is reported.

Google has been fulfilling its part of the law, as the law is written. Viacom is trying to get the law re-written. If Viacom has its way, it will mean that intermediaries can be sued. This means that if you want to set up a website, your ISP is now legally at-risk with every file you upload. What this means is... higher costs... more frequent censorship... delayed posting and hosting... and the elimination of "the little guys." At that point the Internet will only consist of the wealthy corporations who have expensive legal teams and whether or not they want to allow you, the little guy, to put content up... ever.

The basis of the Internet as we know it today was founded on the principle that any Joe Shmoe could create a website, put up content, and become rich and famous. This is how many of the big Internet companies today started. Even Google started as two Stanford students doing a school project. It was later moved into a garage for hosting, and the rest is history. If Viacom has its way, this will no longer be possible. No ISP will have the resources necessary to keep hosting rates low while simultaneously needing to police every file and message post hosted on their servers.

Sure, Google could hire a team of people to find copyrighted works and remove them. However, if there are thousands of videos uploaded today, found today, and taken down today... tens of thousands would be uploaded tomorrow. By claiming that it is Google's responsibility to police every single upload means that you can hold them liable for the ONE file that slips through the net.

Here's another example. Let's say Viacom hires a marketing firm called Ads, Inc. They want to promote MTV shows more, and the Ads, Inc. company suggests that some scenes from Real World should be uploaded to YouTube and link to the MTV website. Viacom agrees, pays Ads, Inc., and Google sees a new user called adsinc uploading Real World clips. If Google single-handedly decides to take these clips down, Viacom can sue them for TAKING THE CLIPS OFFLINE. After all, Viacom paid decent money to Ads, Inc. only to have their marketing plan interrupted by Google's decisions.

This means that it isn't as simple as Google finding videos that APPEAR that they don't belong on the web... in some cases there may have been permission... in other cases, there likely wasn't. If Google had to contact each user and try to investigate the validity of permission for uploading clips, they'd need tens of thousands of full-time workers doing this job alone. YouTube would no longer be viable and would be shut down.

The real reason Viacom wants to shut down YouTube is because they want the popular video sites of the Internet to be owned by them with their generated content, not by a third-party that has no content of its own and which is filled by user generated content. In other words, they don't want people to stop watching MTV in favor of watching lonelygirl15 and others.

And if you think that Google could have a smaller team of people only looking for Viacom copyrighted content and not worrying about the "lesser known videos"... then you are basically saying that Viacom has more of a right to copyright protection than the high schoolers who decide to make their own movie with a camcorder. In that case, it would mean you are all for corporations getting preferential treatment to the poor little guys.

Again, the only reason Viacom has brought on this suit is because they fear that home users can create more compelling entertainment than their highly-paid producers, they don't like the democratization of the Internet, and they think large corporations should be given preferential treatment over the common person.

I don't care of Google has one dollar or billions of dollars. This particular case is about Viacom attacking an IDEA... not attacking just another corporation. They were going after YouTube before Google owned it. It is one of the reasons the founders of YouTube were compelled to sell to Google because they knew they didn't have the pockets to pay for a legal defense against a giant like Viacom. If Google had never bought YouTube, YouTube would simply not exist today... or would have been bought by some OTHER large corporation (News Corp?) and they would have been in a legal battle with Viacom.

Again, this isn't about Viacom versus Google. This is Viacom against a free and open and unfettered Internet for the people.

[plumisland1964]

inconvenient truth viewed one and a half billion times........!!! " hey viatard, i bet al gore is real upset about that"....................

[nickvalachi]

Are you kidding me! The only way we will successfully make the transition from traditional media infrastructures, which provides the established foundation for 95% of the revenue generated from premium content (not UGC), to a digital model is if the monopolistic players like Google respect the rule of law and work with media to develop the most appropriate system for distributing video programming moving forward. Google has made the bulk of its revenue from a simplistic revenue model, and is trying to apply the same argument to video distribution. I urge the great media companies to stand up and fight Google to the end of time until they come down from their high horse.

[Herbi Rihiratu]

Viacom's base is that violation of copy right. If YouTube is guilty of this then what's stopping others to sue about the content of google search. Google also make money from listing other people's blog, site, etc.
Viacom law suit is not an attack on google and you tube but on the freedom of the average internet users. I have the right to copy anything from TV and to post it on You tube since I have no financial gain directly from it. Youtube isn't deliberately asking people to post certain types of videos.
I think the part of Viacom's motivation in suing Google/Youtube is more incline to the part of Viacom as the distributor of for example Jon Stewart daily Show intead of Viacom as the producer of the show. As a producer of the show, Viacom has not interest on suing Google which popularized the show more than ay distributor ever could. However, as a distributor, Viacom is a company that is loosing the battle with the web 2.0. Televison is loosing the battle for cost efficiency with the internet broadband technology. One could see this like the railroad and shipping owner suing the airline for being faster and more reliable, if this ever occurred.

[gwhizofto]

The business model of broadcast has been destroyed now that everyone can be a broadcaster. The business model of selling content retail and tolerating modest sharing and piracy is broken because everyone can be a worldwide distributor. The consolidation of media owners into a few huge groups so they can leverage control will not work because everyone can create at least a little bit of interesting content, which makes enough to go around forever.

Viacom needs to spend their money on new content and realize that initial sales of that content are mostly 'it' unless they come up with an aftermarket, value add strategy for making them uniquely positioned to provide content and service the customer who buys it.

iTunes has figured out some things that work, Starbucks is working on it, Disney retail outlets tried it. There are new business models to be found/made/tried.

VIacom could realize that the value of content in the past was largely governed by the inability to obtain it or reproduce it or distribute it without substantial business investment. YouTube was two guys in a garage, and that can happen in just about any garage now. So perhaps that says that content's monetary value has changed, or is changing. It is beginning to be valued based on raw creativity, not on controlled distribution.

The wave after that will again be more quality as opposed to pure novelty. Maybe they shoudl work on catching that wave.

[elefics]

It wouldn't be trivial for YouTube to argue fair use of copyrighted content since it makes a profit from it (indirectly through ads), and it does dip into Viacom's market and hence adversely affects its profits. At the same time a court would have to balance between the author's copyrights and the rights of general public to use and build upon that content which may be a never-ending debate. A revenue sharing agreement would make most sense, and hopefully this lawsuit is only meant to strengthen Viacom's position when negotiating such an agreement.

[bradleyw801]

You are just mad because you told all of your friends and family to make sure to click on the sponsored links on your page, and you got caught. The same exact thing happened to me. They don't just randomly disable you, they catch the same IP addresses clicking the links over and over, and you got busted.

[reidhb]

Viacom? Who are they?

[humanssssss]

They cheated me too. I don't know how many other people Google has cheated. No wonder why they are making a big profit!

[cahomsy]

Unless I am mistaken here, You Tube and Google don't charge anyone to view these videos, correct? Since this is the case neither You Tube or Google are making any money from them directly, the only money they make is from advertising. So directly You Tube and Google are not making money from these videos and therefore the entire lawsuit is doing nothing but clogging up the already overburdened court system with a frivolous lawsuit, and Viacom should be the one punished for bringing such an act to court. I believe there is such a law on the books to do so on You Tube and Google's side. When the studios and cable company's stop this attack on our rights as citizens to record their signals legally, as ruled by the Supreme Court, oh about 40 years ago. This constant whining about profit loss, copyright infringement, etc., It's really getting old, I mean REALLY GETTING OLD! Maybe if you would stop putting into production these miserable, horrendous movies, tv shows and music that nobody wants anything to do with and give creative control back to the creative people in the industry and you stuffed shirt MBA's stepped aside. Stopped worrying about your "bottom line" and stepped up to the twenty first century where you no longer have complete control over what is seen and heard by the masses. Because you are trying to control the process instead of letting it flow naturally, which by the way you are failing at miserably. Can you say cat herding?

[fredtheviking]

I do not believe Google could prevent copyright from being posted to thier website in an effective way (without severely undermining people attempts to post legitimate content). Even if Google delay up to 24 hours all attempts to post videos (in attempt to screen content), the job of going through millions of videos would be mind blogging. One thing they could try is a flaging system, where users could point out copyrighted content when they see it. Also, a fair use flag as well and the community could decides what should stay or go.

Or even better make it harder to get a user account (at least account with the privilege to post videos). Only users, who account are verified can post videos and if they post copyrighted content, they personally put themselves at risk for being sue (instead of Google). Also, Google would censor violators. I guess there possible approaches that Google could try, but they may take away from the user experience and I am not sure that Viacom would ever be satified. They seems to think that Google could stop copyrighted content indefinitely and that it is really thier responsible.