Blogs Dashboard
Just another Blogs.reuters.com weblog
Viacom hits up Google for $1 billion
Email 
Print
The lawsuit you saw coming from a mile away just pulled into the station. Media conglomerate Viacom said it would sue Google and its Internet video-sharing Web site YouTube for more than $1 billion.
The lawsuit, filed in a New York City federal court, accuses Google and YouTube of “massive intentional copyright infringement.” It seeks more than $1 billion in damages and an injunction against future violations.
Read the lawsuit here, or check out some choice excerpts:
- “YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on favorable terms.”
The complaint argues that YouTube enables its users to instantly post copies of videos from popular Comedy Central Program “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” to Nickelodeon children’s shows “SpongeBob Squarepants” and “Dora the Explorer.”
- “YouTube has the right and ability to control the massive infringement on its site… The infringement is being committed on YouTube’s own website, which (the) defendants control, not on other Websites controlled by others.”
- “YouTube proactively reviews and removes pornographic videos from its library, but refuses to do the same thing for videos that obviously infringe plaintiffs’ copyrights.”
Should YouTube be allowed to post TV show clips? Is YouTube violating Viacom’s copyrights? Should YouTube be forced to take down these videos? Should Viacom settle, and maybe strike a deal with YouTube?
How will this shake out? Send us your comments.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
The Wall
I think Google could be in for some serious trouble. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see other content creators come out, and create a massive, massive class-action suit against Google.
And, to be honest, I’d be more than happy to see it happen. We need to establish some serious, legal online video sites. Joost is coming on strong, and that will help. This lawsuit will definitely help.
I imagine people at YouTube are working overtime, hitting delete, delete, delete….
This may be the first big step towards legal, online, over the top video offereings.
- Kimberly
This looks like a fine time for Google to buy Viacom
The lawsuit will go no where because the structure of the website resembles a peer to peer setup. That setup is the single most used venue to transfer copyrighted material. In addition, as the internet proliferation continues businesses are going to realize that free is the way to go. Give it away and charge for advertising. Viacom should be estatic that their content is getting viewed as much as it is. Once people get a taste they want more and go to viacom to get it.
Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the peer-2-peer setup is no longer found legal.
- Kim
Back when Napster was going on, I heard a lot of new music from artists I’d never heard of before. I also BOUGHT a large number CDs of those same artists. Without Napster I probably wouldn’t have bought any because I wouldn’t have heard all this new stuff.
Now Viacom has their drawers all knotted up because people are showing LO-FI CLIPS (not complete productions, mind you, just low-bandwidth snippits). Once again I’m getting introduced to new artists and new content, and I’ll probably buy more videos because of it.
Do these corporate knuckleheads really think I’d be buying complete video DVDs just to see what’s out there if I didn’t have access to YouTube? Do they really believe that when people listen to a bit of music or watch a video clip on the internet it is a lost sale?
Maybe greed is over-riding their common sense.
I think Viacom will settle for royalties and Google will have to share a piece of the pie or else they’ll have a lot of trouble ahead of them.
GOOG does not respect content. Their business model is based on giving you access to content for free and then giving you advertisements that you have to pay for. However, the content owner or generator gets NOTHING in return, except now they have a website with some tags. These tags associated with website owner are then used to find competitors, which are then served up by GOOG. So you have to pay GOOG to get screwed by GOOG. Great business model. I wonder when someone is going to figure it out.
i like the comment by Tom. That is also true for me. The folks who work at google are definitely some smart men and women, and i am sure they have thought all about this before the beginning stages of building youtube were put into action. freedom of press people! the people have a right to record something and post it for others to view, and let them make reviews on it! Viacom, in my eyes, are greedy bastards and shouldn’t win a dime!!!!!
Tom makes a great point about the ancillary economic benefits of Napster et al (discovery of new content which consumers then buy) but at the same time Google/YouTube is obviously benefitting greatly by distributing copyrighted content that is not theirs (the ultimate arbitrage opportunist).
I think Viacom is a little pissed off that YouTube is still dominating the eyeballs, despite Viacom having its own sites: iFilm, ComedyCentral, etc.
I think this is more of a scare tactic to get Google to stop being arrogant (as Eric Schmidt admitted) and settle on a big deal.
It is inevitable, youtube will come out of this unscathed. They should settle differences and strike up partnerships.
This would make a very interesting court case. However, I feel that both companies will be much more comfortable settling out of court.
Joe, there is an important distinction that has been made here. Viacom believes it has evidence of Youtube deliberately refusing to do anything about the violations of copyright and even it’s own terms of services, for the purpose of boosting their profits. Viacom et. al would love to get at P2P, Torrent, and everything else. Youtube is just the messenger here. However, by audaciously placing themselves in such an actionable position, Youtube has pretty much volunteered itself as the scapegoat.
Whether or not “free is the way to go”, companies deserve the right to choose whether or not they want to participate in that. Besides, the net effect on revenues and profits is debatable.
Get over it, Viacom.
Ever since, the VCR, CD burner, and MP3 player, there has been no way to completely control copyrights any more. I think the copyright laws themselves need to be re-examined in light of the “digital age,” not the “print age.”
this won’t do anything at all, first of all viacom is so huge that 1 billion dollars for them is the equivilent to about $1 to a regular person, are we ever going to see the end to all of the “i’m suing you cause i own the rights to this and i want to be the only that has it.” i mean come on they sound like little 2 year olds fighting over a piece of candy.
Ahmad I think you have hit the nail on the head!!
No one at Viacom is missing a meal because of YouTube.
Sueing for the sake of sueing doesnt neccesarily produce a dividend at the end of the day.
For instance, free surfers may discover certain programming via YouTube and then decide to tune into the programming.
In this way, YouTube might be enhancing audience share and doing free promotional work.
But in the end I think Viacom will win out if its material they have not given permission for anyone to broadcast.
I would love to have a job sitting on my butt all day making money off of the work that others did in the past, Viacom Give me a job please…..
It’s just a shame we don’t live in a world wear we can share any kind of information and media we want freely over the internet.
Get over it you fat tyrants. Just as the advent of technology has meant the end of privacy for all of us common people, so it also means that the elitists can no longer keep a stranglehold on us peasants.
The people behind this, the top few at Viacom, are people who sit there with hundreds of millions, and some of them have BILLIONS of dollars, and feel like that is still not enough for them. Give me a break.
I say that you are not morally entitled to squeeze every last cent from society that you possibly can.
The super rich have a moral obligation to give back at least a little bit to the society that made their success possible.
I don’t know why you Christians don’t agree, because the bible directs farmers to leave a certain amount behind for the poor.
I wonder if Viacom is getting tactical advice from the RIAA on this one. I sympathize with musical artists, I would sympathize with Jon Stewart if he were losing any money to the blood-sucking tyrants, but I don’t sympathize with Viacom. Grow up already, the Internet isn’t your sandbox, you can’t just take your ball and go home. For better or worse the technology is there and will be used. Embrace it or vanish.
Whose Crazier—- Viacom or Tom Cruise?
Are you kidding? A Billion Dollars. That Austin Powers thing.There’s only one thing missing from this Suetube—the law. Unauthorized is not illegal. It will never make it to court. Viacom is trying, Mono e Mono, to turn the TV industry into the music industry. Think 1984: The BetaMax Case.
zendadi has the perspective. Content making is expensive. Decrease income from content, and quality of content changes, often deteriorates. Copyright is not an entitlement. Nor an unearned priviledge. It’s meant to give those who do work for hire or labor in isolation for weeks, months and often years at low or no pay, or holding ‘day jobs’ compensation in time… to have time and opportunity to utilize their original work in whatever ways they wish for their lifetime, and to their children and heirs for theirs. Though the big companies have a huge cut, at heart, the issue is about why create if it is just taken into the ether with no or little or unreliable compensation. Many content people are already laid off at the big companies in NY and LA. Quality content and quality broadcast talent costs money. Buying a few CDs because of napster, didnt support well enough the many many good and hopeful bands. Their revenue stream was a mere trickle, and most who were ‘discovered’ via a few plays at napster, have long been forgotten and the folk onto whomever the new TV-promoted wonder is. I remember when Stephen King said he would put a novel up online if people would be honest and pay the tiny fee to use it; he took the site down very shortly after because of those who chose not to support his work, but instead to highjack it. Thus, all future online work of his was withdrawn. He has said he would never again have an internet presence. Despite whether one likes or doesnt like S. King, many artists feel similarly and hold their work away from the internet, and their publishers/ broadcast companies legal departments get bigger while quality artistic content becomes more spare. I think no artist I know wants to work for free distribution at youtube or google or any other internet behemoth. Most of us have families, and if an artists cant make it with their art without it being taken out from under them, then flipping hamburgers or teaching, depending on your preference, is the way to go. Those who want to work for no pay ever, are still free to do the work of creating andproviding content if they want. But, i wouldnt count on quality or dazzle or important ideas or even deeply funny ones, coming from that. In terms of copyright and patents, if there is something to be changed, it is not about entertainment. But, rather about pharmeceutics, the copyrights and patents of which keep them expensive for decades, and out of the reach of the poor and needy who are ill and struggling. If there were to be a change to the law, I vote for that area first and foremost. Thanks for listening. Kub
About the Bible/crops thing- that is food for people that can’t afford to eat- are you serious? No one here is poor. We have the money to pay for a PC and an internet connection to post on blogs and sit around watching youtube videos, or download mp3s. Videos and music are not a basic human right. There is no reason they should be free.
It’s great that you want to share everything, but people are 100% entitled to make money off things they own the rights to- morals have nothing to do with this whatsoever (not theirs, and not the Robin Hood mentality you’re taking up, either). It is a legal issue and legally, copyright infringement is wrong.
I like watching daily show clips online and yes, the lawsuit is silly- but none of that matters. What matters is that Viacom owns the rights, and doesn’t want the stuff distributed. That is their call, because they own it. You want to give YOUR show away for free, go for it. But to sit around complaining because someone wants to be paid for what they own? Please.
Google has the money and the pomp. Viacom ought to really stick it to them.
I think that you tube promotes different shows. My friend had a clip on his myspace page that showed me excerpts from a show on msn. Now I watch that show! I think that it helps, not hurts and greed is getting in the way.
to kub
if you care more about getting paid than you do about people hearing your art and seeing your work than you’re a sellout.
i doubt this lawsuit is going anywhere
It is really sad that free information isnt able to be spread throughout the internet. it is even sadder that a giant like Viacom is unable to see the potential in this. Pretty soon we wont need TVs. Well just choose what we want to see and it will be shown. Screw these giant billionaires. As for the 1 billion, I say Google pays it and continues to provide the same level of service (copyright infringement) to its members
I cannot understand why so many seem to support Viacom in this. The music and movie industries are hell-bent on employing whatever tactics they can to restrict the rights of consumers and to control the delivery channels of their content. Can anybody seriously suggest that Youtube in any way threatens to impact these companies’ earning potential negatively? Quite the opposite is more likely to be true. This kind of lawsuit is mean-spirited and petty, not to mention motivated by chronic greed. If these companies continue to insist on their rights over any kind of “fair use”, I would suggest it is high time we as consumers woke up to the fact that we are being exploited. Instead of rolling over and just paying whatever is demanded of us, it is time we became more discerning and less willing to hand over increasing amounts of money for product of increasingly dubious quality. Are we so desparate to be “entertained” that we will pay any amount to watch anything without discrimination? Perhaps we are. In which case, the more fool us!
While it is true that technically, Viacom is correct, in that their content is being “distributed” without their consent. However, as YouTube has the disclaimer on their site that states explicitly not to upload material which is copyrighted by someone other than yourself, I don’t think that they are legally liable. The fact that they are not more proactive about policing the content is a possible weak point, but as a “user-content” style site, this is not neccessarily a reasonable expectation. I agree with the person who implied that perhaps Viacom is just miffed that YouTube takes viewers from their own “you-tube” style websites, and want some sort of consolation prize. This is a pattern, in America especially, that as soon as a company is wildy successful, the not-so-successful companies all want to piggy-back on their profits whining “Where’s MY share!” like little spoiled children. If YouTube were not a profitable venture, you can bet that Viacom would never have bothered.
Of course, the particular brand of corporate lawyers these companies employ, (Lawyeris Parasitis) stand only to gain from these petty sort of lawsuits; they benefit no matter what the outcome.
YouTube (and by extension Google as well) are admirable, successful, and profitable companies; a shining example of the wonders of capitalism.
It would be highly amusing if they just bought Viacom to shut them up.
It’s interesting that so many people seem to cast this in the mould of the big guy (Viacom) tromping on the little guy (Google). Which is odd, because Google is little like Alaska in January is hot!
Further, there is a very real issue that perhaps Google is getting _too_ big: if Google doesn’t list something, does it really exist?!! OK, so YouTube is in a different category, but wouldn’t we be better off with a bunch of smaller video sites instead on One Big One?
That said, all the suit is really about is whether one large company should be able to make money off another large company’s work without paying them for the privilege!
Now, I reckon that Viacom might settle for something like Google hiring significant numbers of “content police” to remove copyrighted material, but if they don’t, and the case gets to court, those people (above) who suggested that because it’s possible it’s OK are likely to be surprised. [Also, this situation is nothing like the Sony videotape case, because YouTube is explicitly for sharing, not just for personal use]. YouTube is NOT fair use. Nor is Google’s book poject. This is not up for debate or argument: fair use is a legal concept, and because just you want to do something doesn’t make it fair
If you want to see how the courts look at the issue, just look at the death of Napster Mark 1! They ordered it shut down. Period.
And that may be the outcome with this. I hope not, and the amount of content posted by people who own the rights is much greater on YouTube than it ever was with Napster (Mark 1).
Finally, to Andy: yes, we’re being exploited. It’s what companies do, have always done, and will always done. But whose the bigger exploiter: YouTube that delivers content with forced advertising and which hasn’t paid for the content, or Viacom, who has paid for the content?
What better way to discourage a free and enterprising WWW. Corporations have already co-opted our so-called “free press”, retooling them into their Agents of Mass Distraction, and not the Fourth Estate they must fight to be! The nature and attraction of the internet is it’s ability to offer each individual the right to the pursuit of Happiness. You take that away, and all you’ll wind up with is a message board.
This is a prime example of cramped thinking that ignores the possibilities opened when enthusiasts share and recommend content. Only a few hundred people saw Steven Colbert live at the White House Correspondents dinner, but millions saw him on YouTube. Instead of hurting Viacom, the increased exposure boosted the audience for his nightly program on Comedy Central. YouTube is an amazingly effective way to give the video equivalent of free samples. And free samples are a tried-and-true way to market your product.
Viacom is really down in the dupms since they were stupid enoug to loose H. Stern, Looks like all their radio stations are in the crapper so they need he money so les can retire ahead of the game.
YouTube is nothing like Napster. YouTube hosts videos that users upload (hence they already have possession of the content, maybe not the rights but the possession) and others can view. You can not download the content on YouTube like you could on Napster. Also YouTube took down all 150,000+ videos and then users simply uploaded them again. Viacom needs to quit being greedy and strike a deal like CBS and BBC did. They don’t have a foot to stand on with this lawsuit.
Old fashioned media companies. We don’t need them. They have a right to their copyright but the exposure as advertising for people to watch the programs on TV is going to be more important than the loss of revenue (which seems to be zero) from people watching snippets on YouTube. I like Google and what it does. As for the media, in general, they rank up there with lawyers, in general, who seem to be the problem here as usual.
I think it is hilarious that Viacom waited until there was somebody with money involved. Youtube wouldn’t have been sued if it was still a small company owned by one guy. But now that Google is the owner, Viacom has somebody they can potentially get much more money from. Ahh, corporate greed. It clearly isn’t about the principle of doing anything illegal to Viacom, otherwise they would have just sued long ago to get their stuff taken off the site.
I read the first dozen or so comments on here. Lost interest after that. I’d rather just spew out my opinion.
I have a text file that I leave open on my laptop as a often-edited, scarcely regarded to-do list. A few days ago I added ‘write angry letter to viacom.’ I don’t know if I can articulate why, and it may just be a matter of being a young person in the dawn of the information age, but I think intangible material, that-which-has-no-mass, ie INFORMATION should be free. I see this as an inherent truth because I exist in a world where information including media is infinitely small and mobile.
If the interest and support is there, it will shine through and keep the artists (the stephen colberts and tom kennys) afloat, God willing. If the Sumner Redstones and Ted Turners have to slim down their bank account in the meantime, I don’t mind.
I’m waiting for the folks at the highest end of the spectrum screaming about copyright and intellectual property (that they usually only had a hand in distributing, not creating) to come up with some word rolling pirates, hippies, and communists all together.
Red Love Longshanks? Captain GrooveMarx? I don’t know. I’m sure we can come up with something good. It sounds like a good life to me, though.
Viacom are jealous, plain and simple.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Although I believe Viascum’s content on YouTube only helps Viascum, I understand their greedy life-hating nature. And like all unAmericans (meaning corporations as opposed to actual American people), it is their right to sue somebody for helping them. In the case of CBS, I get local reception – THROUGH THE AIR!!! YOU DON”T OWN THE AIR, CBS!!! I have a tv, I turn it on, and there’s these terrible shows on CBS, coming through the air. It’s mine now. YOU DON’T OWN THE AIR, CBS!!!
Actually, now that I think about it, I bet Reagan passed some bill that says VIACOM owns the air.
When are we gonna revolt? Probably not until there’s no more good content on YouTube…which will never happen…so never…i mean, not until the wireless runs out…
Freedom of Information being once again jepordized for a few dollars.
This is a logical step in the evolution of the internet. Just as the recording industry had to fight to impede “piracy” and illegal copying, Viacom will win this suit, and limit the sources from which sites like YouTube can glean their content.
The long range effect will be to introduce more stability into a relatively unregulated internet by mean of an Adam Smith like “invisible hand”, introducing legislation as needed.
Ray is right, legislation is the only answer. I am so glad the american government stepped in and made spam illegal. That’s why you hardly see any of it anymore. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go clean out my inbox.
this is crap, google is the best commpany in the world and the only one who has a chance on takin on microsoft in real head to head fight and i hope they win, and u want google to get sewed no they need all the money they have to realse good office products and in the future realse the best OS