Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
  Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Research Group
Posts: 3935/4165
Donated $2.44
(14-Mar-2007 at 12:42)


Google/YouTube getting Sued by Viacom

http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...nbv%5E,00.html

Quote:

YouTube hit with billion-dollar suit
Kenneth Li And Michele Gershberg in New York
MARCH 14, 2007
MEDIA conglomerate Viacom has sued Google and its internet video-sharing site YouTube for more than $US1 billion ($1.27 billion).

The lawsuit accuses Google and its online video unit of "massive intentional copyright infringement", threatening its ambitions to turn YouTube into a major distributor of entertainment and outlet for advertising.

Viacom has been the most vocal critic of YouTube as it sought to negotiate payment for use of its programming. Last month, the company demanded YouTube pull more than 100,000 video clips uploaded by users to its site.

"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden - and high cost - of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement," Viacom said.

Google said it was confident that YouTube respects the copyrights at issue in the Viacom case.

"We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube," Google said in a statement.

General Electric's majority owned NBC Universal and News Corporation (publisher of AustralianIT) have also criticised YouTube's copyright protection policies but have stopped short of taking legal action, testimony to a media industry quandary between embracing a fast-growing outlet for younger audiences or trying to build a competing web vehicle themselves.

YouTube does not prevent copyrighted content from being uploaded onto its site, but will take material down at the request of copyright owners.

"We've dealt with YouTube on a case by case basis to have content taken down," a News Corp spokesman said, adding the company supported Viacom's right "to protect its own content in whatever way it needs to".

Viacom contends that almost 160,000 unauthorised clips - from excerpts of the US comedy talk show The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to pieces of children's programs like SpongeBob SquarePants - have been uploaded onto YouTube's site and viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

The decision to sue Google followed "a great deal of unproductive negotiation", the company said.

Viacom filed the suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking an injunction against further violations and damages.

Google bought YouTube last November for $US1.65 billion, intent on capitalise on its explosive audience growth, built from sharing both homemade and professionally produced videos.

YouTube has reached licensing deals with major record labels, but still faces the ire of major media companies. Google has promised new technology to help identify pirated videos uploaded by users, but has not given a firm timetable for its introduction.

"If there's anything central to Google's business model, it is being at the centre of everything," said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. "This has the potential to put them on the periphery."

Viacom and peers like NBC Universal, in which France's Vivendi owns a minority interest, are also investing heavily in their own internet video sites in an effort to benefit from the migration of television audiences to the web.
http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...E15306,00.html


Quote:
We're safe, says Google
Eric Auchard in New York
MARCH 14, 2007
GOOGLE is confident YouTube and its other web services have strong legal protection under current copyright law.

Media conglomerate Viacom ended six months of thinly veiled threats against YouTube earlier with a $US1 billion ($1.27 billion) lawsuit that accuses Google and YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement".

But Google and YouTube lawyers said their actions are squarely within the protection offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 and they were prepared to defend the company aggressively.

The DMCA has served as the legal standard defining US copyright law in the digital age. It limits liability for firms that act quickly to block access to pirated materials once they are notified by copyright holders of specific infringement.

"Here there is a law which is specifically designed to give web hosts such as us, or... bloggers or people that provide photo-album hosting online (providing) the 'safe harbour' we need in order to be able to do hosting online," Google associate general counsel for products and intellectual property Alexander Macgillivray said.

"We will never launch a product or acquire a company unless we are completely satisfied with its legal basis for operating."

Google's move to acquire YouTube for $US1.65 billion in early October was preceded by a series of threats and at least one federal lawsuit filed against YouTube.

YouTube was sued in July 2006 by Los Angeles News Service operator Robert Tur for allowing YouTube users to upload and view his famous footage of trucker Reginald Denny being beaten during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

In September, Doug Morris, chief executive of Universal Music Group, the world's biggest record company, accused YouTube and News Corporation's MySpace social network site of being "copyright infringers" at a Wall Street conference.

David Drummond, the executive who spearheaded Google's $US1.65 billion acquisition of YouTube last November, serves as both its head of business development and chief legal officer.

Responding to Viacom's suit, which also seeks an injunction that could lead to a possible shutdown of YouTube, Mr Macgillivray said Google had done its homework.

"This is an area of law where there are a bunch of really clear precedents. Amazon and eBay have both been found to qualify for the safe harbour and there are a whole bunch more," he said.

"We will continue to innovate and continue to host material for people, without being distracted by this suit."

Mr Mcagillivray Google previously won dismissal of a lawsuit involving copyright issues filed by Nevada attorney Blake Field. The judge used 'safe harbor" protection, among a series of grounds, in granting summary judgment to Google.
Something interesting i read after my 4 hours of straight classes.
I think YouTube has a chance, as it does remove content upon request by original copyright owners. We'll see how it goes.

Last edited by NeoDeGenero, 14-Mar-2007 at 12:43.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by NeoDeGenero Add NeoDeGenero to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 974/2297
(14-Mar-2007 at 15:08)


It's like sueing a post office for delivering bullet-letters

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 37/48
(14-Mar-2007 at 18:11)
Here's my opinion on it:

Viacom is being stupid. They are being just like the record companies when music became readily available online. (Follow me on this one)

When the Napstar scandal started, the big record companies had one thing on their minds: sue. Sue sue sue, because that will obviously make everything right. They devoted all of their energy into it, and after they won, they continued to try to get people to "do the right thing! pay for your CD's!"

Meanwhile, in the midst of their greedy notions that sueing the world would solve everything, they were completely blind to the reality that the internet was becoming a very powerful force. You can't just tell something not to be on the internet. Rather than capitalizing on the technology, they complained about it.

Small companies came and went in the world of online music, but then, one company that was in position to do it capitalized in online music: Apple. You could buy music easily and legally, (buy ONLY the songs that you wanted), and then immediately put them on your IPod. ITunes has become so popular that the ITunes server almost crashed over Christmas break it was getting so many hits.

Now ITunes is profiting and the big record companies are scraping by, still losing profits to illegally downloaded music. They were stupid.

And now, Viacom is making the same mistake. "Sue! That will solve all of the worlds problems!" I'm not saying Viacom needs to drop the lawsuit, but they can't focus on it. The lawsuit can't be to "pay for lost damages ". It needs to be so that they can capitalize on online TV. Pay for episodes and watch them on your computer. THAT is the only thing that will save Viacom, and they need to do it now, before its too late.
#3  
View Public Profile Visit Stargazer's homepage Find more posts by Stargazer Add Stargazer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2400/3861
(14-Mar-2007 at 22:14)


I think Viacom may win. I remember a similiar case about the music industry

Never Forget

September 11, 2001
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invictus2001 Add Invictus2001 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4599/4986
(14-Mar-2007 at 22:22)


You mean Napster?

Of course both parties stand a chance, but I'm pretty sure it will be Google that wins.

The argument that the victim is now the one who needs to keep track of every copyright violation and report it is true, and sounds persuasive, but in reality it is the same. If you get robbed, it is your job to report it to the police every time.

The response to that will be that unlike the police, YouTube is doing nothing to prevent this crime. I don't think that will hold. After all, they clearly say they don't want copyright violations, and they remove anything they notice violates copyright (or so they say). Even if the argument holds, it is a lot weaker than the initial "the victim has to do all the work".

Google/YouTube will win this.
#5  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1491/1958
(14-Mar-2007 at 22:28)


Anyone else get the feeling Invictus never reads the other posts before replying?

And I agree with Stargazer. The new media is a vast, largely untapped source of money. If a company were to accept that and get some kind of visionary that can come up with a good plan for it, lots of money can definately be made. It's a shame that they just want to shut it all down instead of striking a deal.
Chelsea, for example, struck a deal with YouTube, and they're putting their own stuff on there. A LOT of people get to see that, and this will increase their popularity worldwide. I think that's a smart move.

That said, YouTube should have a better system to check copywritten stuff. But they know that it'll cut down on site visits if they'd have no copywritten stuff at all, so they're better off with dodgy stuff.

And like Ape said, it's not their business to prevent it. I remember a judge comparing it in I believe a Kazaa case (paraphrased):
"It's like having a Xerox machine in a library. You don't want people to Xerox entire books, but you do give them the opportunity. If they do it it's not your fault, though." Makes sense to me.

---
--

(Hey Hopey!)

Last edited by Lunor, 14-Mar-2007 at 22:30.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lunor Add Lunor to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Thrinniti)
Posts: 588/666
(14-Mar-2007 at 22:29)


Since youtube provides the facilities to spread thousands of copyright protected material, i think Viacom has a pretty good chance. I doubt they'll get the money claim but i can imagine the court rule states that youtube needs to be more strict. I've a book lying around about copyright protection but i'm not thrilled to read it more than i had too

I actually had all X-men episodes linked in my favorites and a lot from Southpark. Awesome..untill they all got removed Youtube paid BBC an unknown sum of money to be allowed to distribute BBC-related material. So i shouldn't underestimate Viacom's chance of changing things.

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids , we'd all be running around in darkened rooms munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electron ic music ."
Kristian Wilson , Nintendo Inc 1989
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Skrix Add Skrix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 503/922
(14-Mar-2007 at 23:46)


there was an act that was just made stronger with another act that was made to protect when things like this happen. That gives a big advantage to Google. And how easy is it to monitor what goes on youtube? if viacom wants for it to be shut down they will loose.

RIP John Lennon
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2401/3861
(15-Mar-2007 at 00:10)


Re: Google/YouTube getting Sued by Viacom

Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
You mean Napster?

yes i did. For those of you that appear to be a bit slower my post was in reference to Napster losing the lawsuit against them by posting copyrighted material on the website... much like youtube.

copyright is a copyright. Some people make their living off of copyrighted material

It doesnt take much effort as Thrinniti said.. just get permission

matinog shutting down a site wont fly. Most cases of copyright infringement usually costs x amount of dollars per instance to the party infringed upon.

Its youtubes site they should be help liable for what is posted there... I dont visit that site much except to see WoW postings.. are there nudes there?

Never Forget

September 11, 2001
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invictus2001 Add Invictus2001 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 504/922
(15-Mar-2007 at 00:14)


Originally Posted by Invictus2001: View Post
yes i did. For those of you that appear to be a bit slower my post was in reference to Napster losing the lawsuit against them by posting copyrighted material on the website... much like youtube.

copyright is a copyright. Some people make their living off of copyrighted material

It doesnt take much effort as Thrinniti said.. just get permission

matinog shutting down a site wont fly. Most cases of copyright infringement usually costs x amount of dollars per instance to the party infringed upon.

Its youtubes site they should be help liable for what is posted there... I dont visit that site much except to see WoW postings.. are there nudes there?
Napster was made for the sole purpose of hosting illegal files. In Youtube that is not the case, when i go to Youtube i rarely see any illegal files. That is not in any way the main function or the main way that the website is used. Therefore it is extremely different from Napster.

RIP John Lennon
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 38/48
(15-Mar-2007 at 00:40)
In addition to that, it was the webmasters of Napster who were uploading the music. It is the users of YouTube who are uploading the videos.
#11  
View Public Profile Visit Stargazer's homepage Find more posts by Stargazer Add Stargazer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4600/4986
(15-Mar-2007 at 01:30)


Quote:
are there nudes there?
No.

As for the rest of your post: it has been answered and countered already. Xerox makes copying books and photographs possible, they're not getting sued. YouTube allows users to upload stuff, on the condition that it is not copyrighted. If users violate this condition, why hold YouTube responsible?
#12  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2402/3861
(15-Mar-2007 at 02:06)


Re: Google/YouTube getting Sued by Viacom

Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
No.

As for the rest of your post: it has been answered and countered already. Xerox makes copying books and photographs possible, they're not getting sued.


YouTube allows users to upload stuff, on the condition that it is not copyrighted. If users violate this condition, why hold YouTube responsible?[/quote]


If I made a copy with a xerox machine I would be sued not xerox. That has nothing at all to do with an owner of a server and website of having illegal items posted there. An owner of the website and or server is responsible for items on there... I think end result of case will be a minor cash settlement and some kind of new procedure for youtube to watch for illegal items on their servers.




Quote:
YouTube allows users to upload stuff, on the condition that it is not copyrighted. If users violate this condition, why hold YouTube responsible?

As I sorta stated in above paragraph Youtube owns the site and servers. If they dont have the proper controls to follow the law then they cant cry about it.


but as i stated like napster I dont think much will come from it... maybe a charge for uploading stuff, it will be interesting to watch however. Especially with the anti company congress now.


Just thought of something... what country is youtube based out of?

Never Forget

September 11, 2001
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invictus2001 Add Invictus2001 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 39/48
(15-Mar-2007 at 02:13)
The United States - California if you're interested. Same with Google .
#14  
View Public Profile Visit Stargazer's homepage Find more posts by Stargazer Add Stargazer to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4601/4986
(15-Mar-2007 at 02:17)


Good point that they own the servers. So a judge will need to decide whether open free services for the public are to be open when that public can abuse them.
#15  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 505/922
(15-Mar-2007 at 03:25)


Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
Good point that they own the servers. So a judge will need to decide whether open free services for the public are to be open when that public can abuse them.
Yes and the decision wont be 100% coin-toss. Theres the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act to help Google out. "The court shall remit statutory damages for secondary infringement except in the case in which the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the act or acts constituting such secondary infringement were done under circumstances in which no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful" is one of the things the FAIR USE bill will add. Under that it will be really difficult for Google to loose. But the FAIR USE act still hasnt passed but has good hopes with many people backing it.

LINK

RIP John Lennon
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2404/3861
(15-Mar-2007 at 03:25)


Re: Google/YouTube getting Sued by Viacom

Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
Good point that they own the servers. So a judge will need to decide whether open free services for the public are to be open when that public can abuse them.
Thats why i was wondering where the servers were. If out of US then I dont think courts have a say.... but leave it to those wacky West Coasters, always causing problems

Never Forget

September 11, 2001
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invictus2001 Add Invictus2001 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as matinog)
Posts: 506/922
(15-Mar-2007 at 03:27)


Originally Posted by Invictus2001: View Post
Thats why i was wondering where the servers were. If out of US then I dont think courts have a say.... but leave it to those wacky West Coasters, always causing problems
Google owns the most servers on earth but its based on the US.

RIP John Lennon
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mandraque Add Mandraque to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1860/2678
(17-Mar-2007 at 21:34)


I think Viacom is trying to get Youtube shut down so it won't be able to compete with their own service that they're developing.

"I KEEK A TOUCHDOWN!" - Garo Yepremian
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sister Klon Add Sister Klon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3981/4241
Donated $0.60
(18-Mar-2007 at 19:42)


I don't think Viacom is thinking enough future. I mean, yeah, music there was Napster which soon became synonym for illegal music transfer, but hey now, Napster just made huge profit in LEGAL online music markets.

The ones who capitalize new technology from early on will make most out of it. They secure their place already in markets and have solid cut when rest rush on markets. Now YouTube and Google are on video markets creating new kind phenomenon. Something Viacom doesn't understand.

JMHO.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
  Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
can you be sued over AOL chat? silverbeam Respectable General Discussions 15 30-Jan-2006 05:19
Fear factor sued by viewer Teppic The Lunatic Asylum 41 11-Jan-2005 09:17
Mc donalds being sued shagy2dawg Respectable General Discussions 72 11-Dec-2002 04:02


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:30.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.