Viacom Drops a $1 Billion Nuke on Google

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.

This feels very much the same as “Music Corporate” vs Napster.

It’s old dinosaur media industry fighting hard against a fundamental shift in business model. Smart companies and CEO’s would see that, and move with it… instead of fighting against it. In the end, it really showcases both their inherent greed (the system breeds that after all) and their unwillingness to try anything that’s outside of their comfort zone (read that- anything that hasn’t been a proven money winner already).

Even if Viacom signs some sort of deal, it will be in the face of change and to thwart it… rather than something that embraces and moves with it.

datter

Does Yahoo still look so stupid for not acquiring them?

yeah, they should kill their CEO’s ass off, but instead they’re going to fire him.

If nothing else, maybe Google won’t be so “arrogant” going forward.

http://blog.redherring.com/Home/159

Schmidt gets taken to the woodshed by ‘ol Sumner Redstone…

#Drama 2.0 nailed this on the head. Google/YouTube is in for a VERY tough battle. This won’t end up with Google paying a fine, this will definitely just end up with Google making a deal to make this go away…

Bryan: read up on copyright law and the DMCA. Just because something can be applied to non-infringing use does not mean that it is not liable for infringing use.

The link to the actual lawsuit filing provided by Louis-Eric shows that Viacom is going for blood using many of the arguments posted here:

“Though the videos available on YouTube are uploaded by users in the first instance, upon upload the videos become part of the YouTube library for performance and display on YouTube’s own website, which Defendants control and directly profit from. When a user uploads a video, YouTube copies the video in its own software format, adds it to its own servers, and makes it available for viewing on its own website. A user who wants to view a video goes to the YouTube site by typing http://www.youtube.com into the user’s web browser, enters search terms into a search and indexing function provided by YouTube for this purpose on its site, and receives a list of thumbnails of videos in the YouTube library matching those terms. YouTube creates the thumbnails, which are individual frames from videos in its library – including infringing videos – for the purpose of helping users find what they are searching for. For example, users looking for Plaintiffs’ popular works might type in search terms such as “MTV,” “Stephen Colbert,” “Beavis and Butthead,” or “SpongeBob.” YouTube then returns a list with thumbnails of matching videos in its library, and the user can select and view a video from the list of matches by clicking on the thumbnail created and supplied by YouTube for this purpose. YouTube then publicly performs the chosen video by sending streaming video content from YouTube’s servers to the user’s computer, where it can be viewed by the user. During the entire experience, YouTube prominently displays its logo, user interface, and advertising to the user. Thus, the YouTube conduct that forms the basis of this Complaint is not simply providing storage space, conduits, or other facilities to users who create their own websites with infringing materials. To the contrary, YouTube itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance, and public display of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and that infringement occurs on YouTube’s own website, which is operated and controlled by Defendants, not users.”

“YouTube has the right and ability to control the massive infringement on its site. As described above, the infringement is being committed on YouTube’s own website, which Defendants control, not on other websites controlled by others. YouTube has reserved to itself the unilateral right to impose Terms of Use to which users must agree when they accept YouTube’s invitation to post videos to the site, and YouTube has the power and authority to police what occurs on its premises. Through its Terms of Use, YouTube imposes a wide number of content-based restrictions on the types of videos uploaded to the site, and reserves and exercises the unfettered right to block or remove any video which, in its sole discretion, it deems “inappropriate.” YouTube proactively reviews and removes pornographic videos from its library, but refuses to do the same thing for videos that obviously infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights. YouTube also demands that users grant YouTube a “worldwide . . . license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” the videos they add to YouTube’s library. See Terms of Use, http://www.youtube.com/t/terms (last visited March 12, 2007).”

This is heavy stuff and it does not look good for Google. Viacom is suing for direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. It’s scary when you start thinking about the potential damages that could be awarded if found guilty for all forms of infringement, especially if other copyright owners jump on the bandwagon and sue. I would not want to be a Google shareholder right now because this could potentially have a material impact on the entire business.

As for those posters like Daniel and datter who believe that big media companies like Viacom are dinosaurs: you are apparently ignoring a lot of the new media initiatives being implemented by these companies. According to a recent interview with Sumner Redstone in the Hollywood Reporter, Viacom will make several hundred million from digital ventures this year. They are building up extensive new media properties and even have four mobile TV channels in Germany. Joost obviously made Viacom an offer that Viacom felt will adequately compensate it for its content and Viacom was willing to deal. News Corp., another dinosaur, obviously bought MySpace and has done very well with its digital ventures. Time Warner has extensive online/new media holdings as well. These companies are not fighting against new media. They are trying to implement new media in a manner that is profitable (gasp!). Sometimes the companies, like YouTube, that start first, end up finishing last. Let’s also not forget that some of these big media companies are huge bureaucracies so things aren’t going to happen overnight. But as somebody who doesn’t necessarily always like the Viacoms and News Corps. of the world, I have to say that they are moving in the right direction and aren’t just jumping in head first without trying to figure out how to do it in a fashion that creates a viable business. Just because they don’t do it as fast as some of us would like doesn’t mean that other companies should be able to come in and steal their content.

Anybody who likes to say that big media just doesn’t get it is really saying “I don’t like big corporations and I want everything to be free. Copyright should only be valid if you’re making under $1 billion/year.” I would like to watch Daily Show clips on YouTube (although to be honest I don’t really care where I get the clips), but if you feel really strongly about big media making its content available on YouTube, instead of asking content owners to license it to Google under terms that don’t compensate them appropriately, why don’t you go to Google and ask them why other companies have been able to cut licensing deals and they apparently can’t. As far as I see, everybody is willing to deal and Google is at fault for not being able to get it done. Google has a lot of smart people but there’s an Arabian proverb that says “Arrogance diminishes wisdom” and it looks like Google’s arrogance caught up fairly quick.

George P.: Yahoo looks strangely intelligent, although I’m not sure that’s entirely by plan. As I’ve stated before about acquisitions in the Web 2.0 space, sometimes you can do a lot worse than to just sit back and watch. In the long-term, Yahoo’s failure to execute a big acquisition like YouTube or Facebook might actually save/create value rather than destroy it.

Google had to see this kind of thing coming. Just wait and see, secretly they have been positioning themselves to take over Viacom and make all this go away

At least it’s not 1.65 trillion, which I’m sure AllOfMP3 is working diligently to pay off (haha yeah right).

Google could settle with them… besides, what’s 1 billion off their back? But that might be the blood in the water that other companies need to formulate their own reasons to sue. This could be the first of many lawsuits for youtube’s “massive infringement”.

But they had to have seen this coming…

It seems to me that Google should be protected under the DMCA. They have complied with takedown requests and have even offered the identity of the users who have uploaded illegal materials. I’d be interested to know how many people they have working to take down illegal materials.

Viacom suing Google is like Grandpa yelling at Junior to turn his music down.

It’s a new world, Viacom. Quit whining.

Anthony, you take symbolism to a whole new lever. Asshole.

One other point about RIAA vs Napster needs to be made: The lawsuit generated a tremendous amount of ill will towards the recording industry, and the argument can be made that it has contributed to the decline in sales they are now experiencing. Same thing could happen to the TV and movie industry as a result of this lawsuit. When users realize that they can no longer post and/or watch their favorite Daily Show clips, and they realize that Viacom is to blame, then watch out. The law is (probably) on their side, and they may prevail, but Viacom may ultimately wish they hadn’t.

Some Drifter: Anthony’s symbolism is okay. We just need to add that there’s a very strong likelihood that in this case Grandpa is a body builder and about to unleash a can of whoopass on Junior.

I vote for Drama 2.0

You guys saying that the entertainment industry doesn’t understand it should really consider that you don’t understand it yourself.

First of all, Viacom DOES understand. Proof of this is with the Joost model that they are working to distribute their content on. Plainly put, YouTube is such an ugly model to distribute content on. As I have always stated, I wouldn’t want my hundred million dollar Paramount Pictures products distributed right next to a video of two men singing Backstreet Boys. One is quality, the other is not.

If you think that allowing consumers to upload unlimited content for Google to profit on is ‘moving with a new era’ then you are terribly mistaken. What incentive is there for media companies to create this media if Google is the one who profits off of it?

YouTube should fail and I hope it does - I wonder if Google has a strong code of ethics? It would be so interesting to see if this was turned around.

If anything we have learned through YouTube that consumers want media on demand, and the conglomerates and smaller media companies are taking steps to move in this direction.

In all guys you might be bright consumers, but you would make terrible businessmen.

I knew there were a bunch of media fanboys out there who would suck up viacom’s attempt at a PR move. I didn’t think Mike Arrington was one of them, however. How disappointing to see a leading Web 2.0 journalist buy into the spin of old media thugs.

Google isn’t facing any more legal risks today than they were yesterday. When they bought YouTube there was already a lawsuit underway that could scuttle the whole business (research the name Robert Tur, please). Folks talking about Google being caught unawares by the likes of Sumner Redstone are just ignorant.

Thanks Drama 2.0! I am just wondering whether Google considered this kind of thing when they purchased YouTube.

They should prosecute those 2 founder kids in juvenille court!

Doug: Old media thugs? Amazing that in this day and age, companies that steal are worshipped by Web 2.0 fanboys while the companies that produce the things that get stolen are called thugs. How about this Doug: can I take your car? I’d like to lease it to somebody and keep all the money. If you don’t let me, you’re a thug!

The Tur lawsuit is significantly different for a number of reasons. It’s unclear whether Tur has the money and clout to put himself in a strong enough position to go through a jury trial. He’s the type of party that’s more likely to settle. Second, the extent of the infringement being claimed and potential damages is massive in the Viacom case. Viacom has the money, top attorneys and political sway to create a real problem for Google. Tur is just a tiny thorn in Google’s side at this point.

zoostarr: dead on. If you take away the profit motive for companies like Viacom, nobody is going to want to produce anything. If we ignore copyright law and enable companies like YouTube to freely take content from content producers without compensation, is that a New New Economy or is it really the creation of a socialist system under which nobody really owns anything? There’s a lot of talk about the democratization of content in Web 2.0 but it seems from a lot of the posters that they’re really hoping for the socialization of content. Apparently they are unable to consider the economic implications of what this would mean for major content owners and small content owners alike.

Scott Trotter: the RIAA vs. Napster situation did create ill will and unlike Viacom and some of the other media companies, the RIAA has gone about its business in a less-than-ethical manner. It’s also worth noting that the RIAA acts like a cartel and some have argued that it doesn’t actually have the rights to do what it’s doing because it doesn’t own any copyrights. I can’t speak to this, but let’s not forget that the record labels do allow us to buy music legally through services like iTunes and Rhapsody, so they have come around a bit and are still working on taking it further. Should they have tried to work out a deal with Napster? Perhaps. But then again, Napster knew that it had built a company entirely on theft and it’s hard to deal from that position of weakness.

I don’t necessarily think that this lawsuit is going to have the same PR impact for Viacom as the Napster lawsuit had from the RIAA. Viacom made a considerable effort to negotiate with Google. According to rumors, Google was arrogant and would even put deals on the table and then pull them off. I really do believe that this was a last resort for a company that was tired of playing games with a bunch of bratty children.

Much of the Viacom’s video content is available through other websites, including those owned directly by Viacom. Viacom even claims that traffic to its own websites increased substantially once its clips were removed from YouTube. How much of this is posturing is unknown, but I do believe that most users in this day and age are not that concerned about which brand they use to obtain their content. There’s little loyalty and they’ll go wherever the content is. At the end of the day, I don’t care if I’m getting my content from YouTube, Joost or ComedyCentral.com. I simply want to access high-quality content at my leisure. YouTube is far from high quality and I think most users will, without much complaint, have no problem using services like Joost if they offer a better experience.

Kathy Lickerbie: Chad and Steven are smiling all the way to the bank, however if I remember correctly the RIAA did sue some of Napster’s founders and VCs directly, including Shawn Fanning and Hummer Winbad. I suppose it’s possible that Viacom or another plaintiff could consider doing something similar, but my understanding is that these personal liability lawsuits are much more difficult and Google is the real whale anyway.

Google should just buy Viacom and put an end to it. Viacom will have a hard tim proving the ‘intentional’ part of the copyright infringement.

Dark days ahead for Google? Are people really believing that? Come on, they are more of a powerhouse on the internet than Viacom is on TV. This is the end for Google? Grow up. They’re the largest advertising company in the world and growing into other areas. If Google settles, makes a deal or wins in court, hand the internet over to Google, MS and Yahoo might as well fold. If Google loses, they cut YouTube loose, kiss the lawsuits goodbye and focus on search, advertising, apps and everything else and chalk this one up to experience.

Google wins in this, come on guys you should see that by now.

I’m getting sick of hearing comments like your Matthew…”Google should just buy them” bullshit. Anyone that says that clearly doesn’t know how the stock market works. The Market Cap is not how much spending money a company has. FYI, Market Cap is valuation of a company with the following formula: All outstanding shares * Price per share.

Google is just an over-hyped search engine, which relyies solely on one product/industry: online advertising. So WTF, is it with people acting like Google can do whatever they want. Stop worshiping someone elses success and do something for yourself.

Some drifter,

you obviously do not know what market capitalisation is or what an all share transaction means …