I think Viacom is one of the worst Gestapo companies ever. I am not saying Google is flawless...But there is something seriously wrong with the US copyright laws, and greedy lawyer based corporations use this to their advantage.
America is built on lawsuits, and this needs to change sooner than later.
Viacom was the only company, from whom I received a threatning letter via my internet provider, because I downloaded one of their TV show episodes from a torrent.
To me, thats not piracy, that me watching an episode I missed, because my VCR screwed up...
The formulation of the letter was such, that it would put even a serial killer to shame.
And I a not even talking about greed, when they keep canceling all the good TV shows half way, just because it doesnt hit the rating level they desire, and instead they run repeats of some old crap.
Ahh, and the figure? It reminds me of Austin Powers. Lets make it a zillion billion dollars!!!!
Soo pitiful.

There is a new piggy bank in town. It's not just Microsoft anymore, it's Google too now! I find it amusing that Viacom didn't sue YouTube until after it was acquired by Google. I guess it wasn't profitable enough back then, but now they hit the jackpot.

The DMCA protects sites from liability if users upload copyright protected material. If I type in something out of a book and post it here, and the copyright owner finds out, and they tell Beta News about it, and Beta News does nothing, then there is a reason for a lawsuit. You Tube meets the requirements of the law and then some.

You tube is not about stealing. The vast majority of their uploaders are sharing their own work.

Viacom's real problem is that people know You Tube is more entertaining and more informative than the crap they broadcast. It's a new world and people don't have to consume what the big networks shove in their face. Choice is what scares Viacom not copyright infringement.

Post of the Year!!!!

The vast majority of their uploaders are sharing their own work.


This is where Napster failed and (so far) youtube prevails.

Intent has little to do with it anymore. it's up to the users. Hopefully, the above statement will remain true.

Choice is what scares Viacom not copyright infringement.

Dead on. This boils down to the same fear that drives the **AAs. The EOL of their business model. Change, and the requirements those changes demand.

Gadzooks! We agree on something! :p

How can google begin to believe they are in the right here? Look, I think copyright/trademark/patent laws are silly. But a law is a law and google certainly broke many of them...

Huh!!!??????

Sorry. :) I'm high on percoset after Hernia operation. Yeah wtf was I saying?

Ouch.

That sucks. From someone who's been through it, you have my sympathy. Whatever you do, don't drive on that stuff. The lights and lines go a bit screwy. ;)

How's this analogy - a consumer sends a TV network a video tape of a copyrighted TV show or movie, the TV network airs it non-stop in looping playlist/schedule until they receive a cease and desist and then they stop showing it, with no further legal repercussions.

That's pretty much what Google has been doing. And Google thinks they aren't in the wrong???

That's a very skewed and narrow minded analogy there. What do you propose YouTube do about the problem? Should they review every single video that is posted before it becomes available to everyone? Keep in mind YouTube is the most popular video hosting site and probably receives millions of videos. YouTube's user agreement clearly states that you're not allowed to upload copyrighted material, but people do it anyway. Shouldn't THOSE people be held responsible instead of YouTube? Should we sue and shut down every single "storage" site that allows us to share files, videos and information because it's THEIR fault people don't obey the user agreement? What about sites like RapidShare and MySpace? They're both very popular "hosting" sites and probably contain a large amount of copyrighted material. Sue sue sue, it's the American way! I'm pretty disgusted by corporate America in general. The better your company gets at something, the more likely you are to be targeted by these blood sucking leeches who can't come up with good ideas or services, so they go around suing other companies.

A closer analogy, if you want to stick to pre-internet analogies. would be:

A service allows you to bring in videos. They store them and allow others to check any of them out at any time.

They don't look at them, they don't do anything but sit at the counter, taking new videos and allowing others to check 'em out.

Oh, and they make each person bringing one in read and sign statements that the material they are bringing in does not violate anyone else's rights of distribution.

Your analogy makes it sound as though there is intent. There isn't. That's the test.

Napster failed the test because the majority of use was for the distribution of copyrighted material. I believe, even though there is quite a bit of it on Youtube, it still does not equal a majority of the content.

if viacom is built to sue, youtube was built to steal. sounds like a slam dunk against gootube to me.

Viacom is the parent company of CBS, the folks who bring Katie Couric into your living room every evening and continue to dress her in the Emporer's New Clothes of denial, even as their ratings are plummeting so badly they will reach China by year's end.

It's not surprising that they are such a litigious company because, as mentioned below, they are the major purveyor of "soft" news & celebrity gossip and have nothing to offer except yesterday's cornflakes in an new package.

mtv, vh1, blockbuster... seems like they're in direct competition with youtube.

mtv with its over-40 minuets of advertising per 20 minuets of shows of questionable worth if not simply questionable entertainment value... peddling junk influence at the cost of civility, manners and humility to all viewers dumb enough to turn on, tune in, and drop out. The television channel responsible for too many lawsuits to count. The channel itself is a mouth-piece for entertainment moguls and stars that publicly beat the law with their personified demonstrations of the gaps between the haves and have-nots, to whom I might note they try to appeal to and peddle their stylized wears.

Vh1 with 5,001 flavors of "I love the 80s" rehashed each week with new f-grade critics straight from the bargain bin of star power spinning their cliches of ignorance and intolerance in the name of non-conformist conformity. Leaving you to wonder what would happen to anyone who'd seriously embrace the lifestyles of anyone on their censored, edited, staged and filtered faux-reality shows. How'd that Becham reality show go for those guys? ... couldn't stand a dose of true reality, could they...?

And lastly Blockbuster, to whom simply holding the video rental monopoly wasn't enough, but they had the audacity to sue Netflix in the name of antitrust measures as their recourse against Netflix innovation of renting movies online. And who currently lie in their advertising by stating they can get movies faster to you through the mail and B&M combination while those in the know can see the absurdity when Netflix is the only provider of movies that can be downloaded directly and seen on monitors or any home media station with an internet connection.

I think the listing of those companies alone just exacerbates the strength of the accusations that Mr. s*** so bluntly put in his off-the-cuff remark. This is not simply his view, it is actually the permeating and pervasive view in the court of public opinion.

Viacom and CBS split over a year ago.

Irresponsible statement? Perhaps.

Asking for trouble? You bet.

Anything positive that will result from this reckless statement? Not a one.

But is it downright hilarious? Funniest thing I've read all week :)

Props to your hilarious and straightforward analysis, but an addendum:

Simply put, downloading music, movies, tv shows, video games, pictures, books, essays (and any other form of digital merchandise) that you would normally have to pay for but are getting for free is illegal no matter how many people are doing it.
No point in pointing out how its been going on since forever or how the internet has accelerated the trend or how maybe content providers have been force feeding terrible programming and how this might just be the payback they get or even how many people buy albums or movies even though they can get it for free since they want the box/appreciate the work...
...Because (and I don't think it's terribly irrational to say so) companies like this are creatively bankrupting/stealing money from the industry and until laws are significantly changed and the current patent system redefined (which is no small task) it will keep happening.
You know something is wrong when a system that was used to protect innovators and encourage creativity among competitors is now being used to do the opposite, IMO the industry is very sick and these people are the cancer of it. Sometimes I naively think to myself 'how do these people sleep at night' then remember 'oh yeah, on a bed of million dollar bills'

In a parallel universe maybe, where our inherent selfish nature is subdued, which encompasses joe blo who hordes a library of pirated material and will never ever pay for something he can get for free. People might embrace the web as a means of distributing content with people paying monetary tribute to the creators with the hope that there might possibly be more. Sure, artists would make much less money off of it but last time I checked Shakespeare didn't live in a multi-million dollar mansion and wash his face with evian.

On the side, does anyone else find it funny that in the past century or so the most biologically insignificant people on the planet (artists) have gone from earning either less than or equal to 'worth' than the average proletariat to earning more than many could ever imagine? I suppose it's indicative of the s*** in priorities we have in our lives, 80 years ago it would likely have been 'how will I feed myself' whereas today one chooses to occupy themselves with when paris will get out of jail or what to think of s*** saying out loud exactly what any rational person could see is true.

You know things are going downhill when you hire a lawyer as your CEO (unless it's a lawfirm, of course).

The problem isn't that companies are realizing that they can make more money suing than they can innovating. The problem is that our justice system makes such a business model not only possible, it seems to encourage it.

(edit: removed an inappropriately placed "l")

definitely true. the small business guy doesnt stand a chance against the big business guy with the lawyers on staff

im sure i brought this up before: creative and aureal or nvidia and 3dfx.

gotta throw in the music and movie industry, their entire business model seems to revolve around suing people.

google stood up to microsoft when it had less than a few hundred mil net worth. that might not be "small" but it's peanuts compared to MS.

also, now that google is one of the major players, look at who they're entwined with: MS, Viacomm, MPAA/RIAA...not exactly the most loved companies. no matter what legal standpoint you take, google is fighting the good fight. the fight for ppl that hate crappy companies!