Google responded to Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit over alleged YouTube copyright infringement today. Their answer: Let’s fight this out, in front of a jury.
We earlier predicted that there was no way Google would agree to a settlement with Viacom that involved any damages, and assumed that they would work to sign a licensing deal instead and convince Viacom to simply settle the lawsuit. Viacom later signaled that they weren’t much interested in a deal when they agreed to provide content to Joost and then did a search advertising deal with Yahoo instead of Google.
I have visions of bloggers fighting to get a good seat at the trial, and live blogging the entire thing. The fate of YouTube’s buisness model, as well as many other web startups, will likely be linked to the outcome of this litigation.
See all
Post
Google most likely fired and boot off Viacom.com link search.
I love to see viacom.com link disappear.
No wonder how powerful is google’s “do no evil”
Please be more like samurai warrior when you write your blogs.
I love when you attacked and dissed.
Million dollar VC companies
Marc Andreessen
powerset
Rivals.com
Why not viacom??
Sometimes you get lower rating if you decide not to attack…
No samurai holds to hold white flag and give up.
Now, you got Viacom throwing free arrows at techcrunch readers.
sometimes a legal battle is not for a win, but to merely bleed your opponent dry of money. Neither Viacom nor Google are currently in any financial risk, but maybe Viacom wishes to challenge Google’s financial security. Simply tying the case up in court for a few years can cost a ton of money in legal fees. Hey, at least it would spawn a lot of legal jobs (attorneys, paralegal, secretaries, temps-paralegals, etc.)
All I’m saying is that maybe Viacom doesn’t need to win. Maybe the big V simply want to injure the big G. Doing so may open the doors for other big corporations to jump into the battle.
You know… I am cautiously not optimistic about this. The 2.0 crowd is celebrating like Google’s got it in the bag, but I don’t think they do. Viacom may not be web savvy, but they’re old media money and they certainly know about manipulating legal systems and courtrooms.
Keep your fingers crossed that I’m wrong.
—–
http://techfold.com
I doubt this will ever make it to court, but It would be very interesting to see what the end would be.
What’s the deal with reporting all of this? I can get this news from any online resource. I thought we were here to learn about startups? Seems it’s been Google and Ebay’s week.
Good thing for Google to begin talking with content makers.
If you people think Viacom can’t quantify their damages you’re sadly mistaken. All a judge will have to do is compare what others have been paid by BOOBGOOBERTUBE based on number of times viewed. It’s not rocket science. I’m sure it will be much easier than people think.
All you BoobGooberTubers can demand all you want. If you want it so bad, then you should be willing to pay for it. There ain’t no free lunch.
It’s so bizarre to me that while both Google and Viacom are both corporations with multi-billion dollar market caps, there’s still this sense that Google is the underdog — and that a victory for Google is a victory for the little guy.
Content is still content, and the person or persons (the little guys/gals) who create it should be compensated. Right now, Viacom is doing the compensating and Google isn’t. It’s that simple.
Google good
co2o2photosynthes
co2o2photosynthesis
co2o2photosynthesis
co2o2photosynthesis
Google seem so confident and so lets wait and see what the outcome will be.
Ultimately, the even bigger issue that may arise from the ViaGoog lawsuit is whether DMCA may need to be re-visited to better reflect appropriate use of copyrighted material. The way it is written now, DMCA is being interpreted quite loosely by firms such as Google. DMCA was written to protect copyrighted material from inappropriate use but it seems in reality that firms which interpret it loosely are using it as a protection in a sense to get away with leveraging unconsented content for profit without properly compensating content owners for the material being used.
The people who own/create content tend to get pissed when others utilize their content without consent. Google has gone one step further by monetizing this material by displaying ads next to the video content in question. It will come down to which firm’s high priced lawyers can make a better case about DMCA compliance/non-compliance.
I’m pretty sure when the lawmakers wrote DMCA they didn’t envision how loosely some firms would be in interpreting it. I wouldn’t be surprised if lawmakers get pressured by more and more big media firms to re-visit DMCA’s language in the future. I’m getting a sense that many in the web 2.0 world will be rooting for Google partly because what happens to Google will likely signal how other web 2.0 business models may be impacted.
Google should do the right thing. They should start inking ad revenue share deals for the content they monetize.
This will be interesting going forward.
“…there’s still this sense that Google is the underdog — and that a victory for Google is a victory for the little guy.”
That’s because Google shares.
Sorry Google, YouTube isn’t a hosting company.
I remeber in one of the interview, Google ceo says - they are going to recruit best legal experts around the world. Its time for google to use those resources. lol
http://www.suggestusability.com
tHIS…changes, everything.
Changes what? Same old, same old…
If you can’t earn a living honestly, steal from someone that is.
and if you can do it legally –> by suing them … even better.
“If you can’t earn a living honestly, steal from someone that is.”
Read the DMCA again, Shaun. YouTube is earning a living honestly — sometimes too honestly, in fact.
Is Licensed Arms will be to issued to college going students
Y’all know what happens when Google wins this…
Google should simply buy out Viacom, take what they want, and sell off the pieces. That’ll get the legal eagles out of their hair and they’ll turn around and make a profit off of the parts of the company they do not need.
Google has the midas touch.
I like YouTube, can’t Google just share profits with Viacom?
I don’t think Viacom can win this one.
I agree with Safeharbor, this will all come down to the court’s interpretation of DMCA and whether YouTube can claim they are just a “service provider”.
Personally I think they are more than just a service provider. The DMCA was put in place in the late 90s under Clinton. Back then it was just intended to give ISPs some protection from liability if one of their hosted sites uploaded copyrighted content - like say - hacked versions of Microsoft Word.
But YouTube is more than a host - it tags all of its content, there are cross-referenced links to similar content. I can view a bootleg copy of a Rolling Stones performance and the site will show me tags for other similar bootleg Stones videos and it will then also offer linked recommendations to view similar bootlegs from Bob Marley for example. In other words, YouTube is actively engaged with its content, its not just sitting there as a mere host. There is a database in place that aggregates the content and offers users its results.
At some point in 2005 the folks at YouTube made a decision to allow the uploading of copyrighted material to the site. That decision led to the immense popularity of the site and an eventual $1 billion windfall. Now that decision will have its day in court.