I think we can all agree that we’re “not surprised” by this development. Google expected this as well. Unfortunately, Google might have a huge liability on their hands with this suit. Let’s see how it plays out.

How does the DMCA protect Gootube here?

This will definately set some precedents in terms of how others go about dealing with YouTube. Whether or not this gets to court, it becomes another card for major content owners to play when negotiating for licenses.

I wonder if Fox will do the same, soon.

Can anyone can point me to the actual filing document, it’d be interesting to read?

The DMCA goes out the door under certain circumstances, like profiting from violations, refusing to take down offending content, etc.

Finally. I am so sick of YouTube…

Violating copyrights is truly their bread and butter. I hope they have to pay a whopping bill.

Google should threaten to leverage their search engine against Viacom by removing their sites from the Google index.

Would not by any means be a smart move but it would be a ballsy one.

Here’s the question: Why did Napster get sued out of business, and why are the lawsuits starting against YouTube, when nobody had a problem with Xerox?

It seems that the people being sued are the people who make the photocopiers, if you will, not the people who actually are doing the copying. Now, I know that times are different, and an argument can definitely be made that the actual physical copying takes place somewhere in YouTube’s servers, but is it just me or are the people doing the suing, (Viacom, RIAA, whoever), going after the easy targets or the people, (or businesses), actually committing the crime?

On a side note, here in Canada I am legally allowed to have a “backup copy” of anything I own. Perhaps I should store my backup of Viacom videos on YouTube then sue YouTube for taking them down.

Google have tried to say they are protected under the DCMA safe harbor laws like ISPs but they are more like p2p companies because they contribute to the copyright infringement and host and allow playback of the infringing material via You Tube and Google on servers they directly control .

If only Google could relocate to Russia, where they can live in relative peace (last I saw, AllOfMP3 is still up and running).

“They’re on a very slippery slope right now, with the Napster carcass lying limp at the bottom.”

I don’t see any way this spells the end of Google. The absolute worst case scenario for them is to cut YouTube loose and throw its carcass down where Napster’s is.

But even if this happens (and I seriously doubt it will), Google has plenty of other pies to dip its fingers into, and even losing a name like YouTube (and all the money they paid for it) wouldn’t be able to bring Google down completely.

“Google and YouTube are relying on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, which criminalizes technology whose primary purpose is to circumvent measures that control access to copyright works — even when there is no actual infringement.
If a site removes content “expeditiously” when it receives notice from the copyright holder, then the site has a so-called safe harbor from lawsuits.”

But this DMCA shelter goes out the window once the site is making money from the copyrighted material

Laughing all the way to the bank are the founders of youtube, they’ll pocket a few hundred million each for something that would have never sustained itself without a crazy google purchase.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/.....07cmp.html

I agree — I think we’ll see some sort of licensing agreement come out of this. I just think Viacom wanted to get more than what Google was offering to the other “big media hounds”

Kissinger. If you want to date a girl, first woo her sister. SomeONE didn’t get wooed and they’re out for blood.

it’s unbelieveable that mark cuban turns out to be right. google drops 1.6 billion to buy a video piratebay and set themselves up to get sued.

the founders walk away with enough money to buy islands.

how ridiculous is this? eventually, the people who end up losing are the investors who bought GOOG at 500 bucks. the stock will likely drop to 350 and wait till the case is resolved. if more media giants join in and sue, then google is screwed.

Could this be the beginning of end of web 2.0 bubble also?

- Yeah this won’t reach the courts; This is a great negotiation strategy. Although it wont make any friends, it will bring a higher offering from Google.

- Although if Viacom sticks to it, it could mean the end for Youtube` or atleast a dramatic decline;

- Also if they stick to , they can then open a competitor with anyone else who doesn’t want to deal with YT or Google.

- Ither this is the opening move (chess) .. or just a piece swap.

The reason Youtube was successful in the first place was the fact that people can upload whatever they want and no ads playing before videos. Since these options are soon to go away, Popularity will decline drastically.

Interestingly, this news is not there on “news.google.com”, but if you search for Google in the news search bar, it shows up as 45 minutes ago!

Does this mean that Google is filtering out its news too?

Sorry abt the false alarm, or may be it just came up! .. the news has a title:

“World of Wordcraft: featuring Viacom vs. Google lawyers”,

I tend to agree with Robert in that Viacom is being greedy.
–Perhaps Viacom needs to start adding up the number of their videos found on YouTube and how many times each video has been played … then they need to pull out their checkbook and pay YouTube standard prime time network advertising rates.

It’s a lot of bluster on Viacom’s part I think. I also think they will get a lot of negative press over this one.

The media companies are now basically in the driver’s seat. If all the other media conglomerates jump on the Viacom bandwagon and follow suit (pun intended), then YouTube has no choice but to either shut down or make a deal w/o any leverage.
There really should be a ‘Godfather’ Business 101 because the media giants are really making an offer YouTube can’t refuse. This is kinda like how Vito Corleone was able to get Johnny Fontane’s former band manager to release him from his contract.

MA, are you serious? do you really think google has no play here? i think they are more than willing to take on viacom in this arena. i doubt there will be any licensing agreement given the recent announcement viacom made with joost. this move by viacom is fluff, similar to the RIAA’s recent efforts to combat “piracy.”

while we are at it, why don’t we sue the creators of all technologies that have enabled people to upload, store, share, etc media (CDs, VHS, Flickr [yahoo], …the internet, etc) this post is incredibly lame.

LOL. I said this the day they bought Youtube that someone would sue, I’m just suprised it took so long. I posted yesterday why “Google IS Evil” and now someone else thinks so too. Being too cocky will always come back to bite you Google. Karma.

Open the floodgates, who will be the next MediaGlom to cut and paste
this Viacom suit. GooTube folds to international pressure, I am sure
they will fold to this action..

Mike:
You still need to take a good course on IP law. See also Valleywag’s suggestion (which is one of many good options that Google has). Imagine if Viacom every wants to use a search box on any online property–want to bet that they violate several Google patents?

I think this is a great move on Viacom’s part. Fuck Youtube! Eventually all these video sharing sites will go away as the big boys get their acts together and learn how to do video right, online. Sure there will always be a place for you to watch a dog peeing on a sleeping cat but there’s no real money in it for advertisers, users, or anyone else. Just put it on your blog where it belongs.

the power of google and youtube is the user generated content not the nonsense from the traditional TV companies. Just comply to the requests to remove the said content and carry on as normal, in 6 months the 2 media companies would have probably doubled again in size while the winging TV companies will have halved.

Good to know somebody causing some trouble to Google. Their stock is down 2% on this news.

Mark Cuban - 1

GooTube - 0

Seriously didn’t google know what happened to other file sharing softwares in the past such as kazza. They must have known when they purchased YouTube or they just lost their Mojo.

I think it’s still too early in the process to dismiss YouTube completely. But if and that’s a big if the other media congloms sue as well then YouTube will be relegated to what they set out to be in the first place a “user generated” video site, i.e. no movie, music, comedy, or other copyrighted clips.

The graphic is very appropriate.

This will accelerate negotiations.

Who will get the next major lawsuit? I place my bet on DailyMotion.

So, you got permission from Viacom for the accompanying Austin Powers photo, right ; )

@StartUpCrunch: you couldn’t be more wrong.

Most people go to Youtube to see copyrighted content. Especially from broadcast and cable television. That stuff disappears and Youtube loses a lot of mainstream popularity.

@TC fanboy: you are absolutely right.

Cuban had a great post a couple days ago where he outlined the legal difference between a hosting company, like Rapidshare, and a video sharing service, like Youtube.

Unfortunately, I see dark days ahead for Google.

First, I think that there’s a real possibility that Viacom is out for blood and will be very reluctant to settle. This case not only has the potential to generate substantial damages beyond what Google is likely to offer given their lack of a business model, but also has the potential to set a major precedent that would resolve a lot of outstanding issues. If Viacom loses, big media still has enough lobbying power in Washington to pursue legislative changes to copyright law. Viacom has wisely put Google on the defensive and is now in the position of strength.

Second, it is clear that YouTube is not only making money from infringing content, but probably doesn’t qualify as a host under the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. YouTube a) actively applies a physical process to all uploaded materials to transcode them into a different file format, b) provides a presentation layer (video player) for content that resides on its server and c) provides search and directory functionality making it easy to locate infringing content. I expect these arguments to be made, as I do not believe a service doing these things was contemplated as being a “host” when the DMCA was written. I would also expect to see YouTube’s filtering capabilities targeted during discovery. It’s amazing that YouTube appears to be highly proactive in removing pornographic content but reactive when it comes to copyrighted content. Additionally, if any of the rumors that Google was only offering copyright filtering to content owners that signed deals can be corroborated, the damages that could be awarded might be staggering.

I personally hope that Viacom takes this all the way. There are a lot of unresolved questions regarding copyright and the DMCA that this could resolve which would be beneficial to all parties involved in the media business, including startups. It is much better to have established case law that enables you to know how you need to run your business than to always be under the threat that a legal decision will put you out of business. While I think that big media would be wise to embrace new media (and contrary to the belief of a lot of the Web 2.0 cult, it is), it is also imperative that new media find ways to compensate content owners. Copyright law cannot be applied selectively. If a startup infringes upon the copyright of a large company there should be just as much legal recourse for the copyright owner as there would be if a large company infringes upon the copyright of a startup or individual. If we want individuals and companies in the United States to produce quality content, it’s crucial that we protect their legal and economic rights in that content or nobody will have the incentive to produce anything. You don’t lose your copyright just because you’re an evil corporation or make more than $1 billion/year. And anybody who doesn’t think that “do no evil” Google isn’t as greedy as Viacom is living in a dream world.

On a side note, I’m not an attorney and would be interested in hearing from any that post here as to whether this could potentially lead to a shareholder lawsuit against Google. It is not like this type of event was completely unexpected, and I can’t imagine that Google wasn’t aware of the potential damages it could be on the hook for when it did due diligence. It basically acquired a walking lawsuit and a lot of people pointed this out.

Could someone clarify:

From what I understand transcoding from multiple video formats to one format (Flash .flv) is aiding copyrights infringement. Is’nt YouTube in gross violation of that fact?

If YouTube can let users upload such clips what prevents someone from starting an online music upload website and play it back? iTunes seems such a bad business model?

Am I the first person to think “joost” in all of this? Viacom pulls content from YouTube. Viacom signs deal with Joost to distribute content. Viacom sues YouTube/Google. The DMCA Online Service Provider safe harbour provides at least a modicum of grey in this case (Google in the past having been quite hot in obeying DMCA-oriented take-down notices) and this may simply be viacom stamping their authority on who can distribute their content (e.g. them, via joost).

The phrase “intentional copyright theft” is going to be very hard to prove, especially given that Google Video complied with the take-down notices (thereby complying with the DMCA).

The reality is, both companies are big enough (and have enough money) to tie up this case in litigation for years - by which all of this will be moot. So what are viacom after here? It seems much more a “don’t forget I’m bigger than you” statement than anything else.

#16. Cuban knows that because that’s exactly the biz he sold to the dopes at Yhoo. He pirated sports radio, claimed to have the world’s third biggest network, when all he had was some ceo intranet broadcasts and sold betting ads to offshore books. Takes one to know one. He never had the rights to all the sports bcasts he lifted up on to the net. After he sold that pig to Yhoo he shorted Yhoo all the way down. Freaking genius. I love it when Charlie Rose stares adoringly in to his eyes.

http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/200.....-12-07.pdf

Sam Newman: you are forgetting that the DMCA Safe Harbor provision only applies to hosts. I would anticipate that part of Viacom’s strategy will be to question whether YouTube reasonably qualifies as a host. Unfortunately, the DMCA does not do a great job at defining a host (it was written in the late 90s), however I believe that it did not intend for a service such as YouTube to be considered one. See my post above (#39) for the three arguments against YouTube being a host. As PJ correctly points out, one of the arguments against YouTube being a host revolves around the transcoding of videos into FLV format. I don’t see how the traditional definition of a “host” as contemplated when the DMCA was drafted would apply to a service that formats content. Essentially, YouTube is directly involved in the infringement not only because it has a significant financial incentive but because it directly facilitates infringement through the prepartion of the content for display. It is not as if users are simply uploading their content to a YouTube server where other users can download it in raw format. YouTube is involved in all aspects of the infringment: putting content into a format that enables it to be played and shared via YouTube’s player and then providing tools to easily organize and locate content. And to top it off it is benefitting financially by showing advertising.

Using Napster as a comparison, Napster simply provided a “directory” of where infringing content was located. It didn’t host it, didn’t transcode it and actually didn’t benefit much financially (although it did raise substantial funding which counts). On the surface, it seems to me that Google is facing a serious legal challenge.

YouTube is involved in all aspects of the infringment: putting content into a format that enables it to be played and shared via YouTube’s player and then providing tools to easily organize and locate content. And to top it off it is benefitting financially by showing advertising.

Um, this is also the process used in all their *non-infringing* operations as well. The process itself is content neutral.

I think this will go down as the $1bn flip-off.

Eric Schmidt’s comments last week at the Bear Stearns investor conference last week could not have gone down well at places like Viacom. Questioning content owners on the value of their content and asking them to “prove it” like one of those famous Google brainteasers does not seem like the way to de-escalate a dispute with content owners.

It looks like the proof he is looking was delivered this morning.

I’m not quite sure we’re done with the Napster comparison just yet:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
NAPSTER = YOUTUBE

I guess Viacom never leave in peace YouTube and Google taken together because of their high traffic rates, MTV want to become popular video sharing site. Youtube won’t be shut down, big money are in a whirl.

Drama 2.0 is exactly right in every point that he has made. He is even more on the money when he compares Napster and GooTube.

As already stated:

Mark Cuban 1
Google 0

Yet more proof that the film industry, like the music industry, has seriously failed to understand where its consumers are. Their consumers are years ahead of them, and they’re blundering about attempting to understand and profit.