RSSViacom Files Landmark Copyright Case Against Google, YouTube
by Scott M. Fulton, III
The case that will likely determine the future of the online video sharing industry at least, and the Internet media economy at most, has been filed. Viacom, one of the world's largest media rights holders, has sued Google in federal court in New York, seeking $1 billion in damages for an estimated 1.5 billion separate infringements of copyright.
Viacom's legal team released a four-paragraph statement this morning, which is best read in its entirety:
This behavior stands in stark contrast to the actions of other significant distributors, who have recognized the fair value of entertainment content and have concluded agreements to make content legally available to their customers around the world.
There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity.
After a great deal of unproductive negotiation, and remedial efforts by ourselves and other copyright holders, YouTube continues in its unlawful business model. Therefore, we must turn to the courts to prevent Google and YouTube from continuing to steal value from artists and to obtain compensation for the significant damage they have caused.
While YouTube and Viacom had reached some kind of tentative agreement last October, which originally was reported to be culminating in a kind of rights management system for copyright holders, that agreement appeared to be quickly unraveling last month.
In its statement, Viacom's grievances against YouTube, and the probable causes for their deal having fallen apart, are made stunningly clear. The first paragraph alleges that YouTube would not have played an active, participatory role in the rights management process, beyond providing rights holders with some of the tools for them to do the job themselves. YouTube videos are posted mainly by individuals, and a tremendous amount of that content is comprised of recorded video excerpts of others' copyrighted material.
While some have been willing to live with that fact under the premise that any kind of awareness of that material counts as promotion -- and free promotion at that -- Viacom, a company that's in the business of distributing such content over its own systems, perceives any distribution of its material outside of its own control as contrary to its own rights to use that material as it solely intends.
The second paragraph alludes to services that have "recognized the fair value of entertainment content," though it mentions no one by name. In recent months, Napster has completed its transition from a decentralized content replication service to a fair market brand. Last month, the company reached a preliminary deal with startup Joost, whose creators' last P2P effort is known as Skype.
And last November, Viacom's Paramount Pictures unit announced a partnership with BitTorrent, which just one year before had been the target of a full-on legal assault by rights holders who accused the system's creators of willfully devising BitTorrent to thwart the aims of copyright protection.
BitTorrent's Bram Cohen had long maintained he did not create his P2P multiplexing system will ill intent, though in the interest of maintaining his business and against his own earlier claims of non-feasibility, he agreed to implement a rights control system for BitTorrent. Since YouTube is not nearly as technologically complex, it will be difficult for Google to argue that a similarly agreeable rights management system isn't feasible.
Next: A video-sharing future for the Internet that will likely change
36 Comments
They supply cheapest rf gold for the player.They have rf online gold . I usually rf money from them.
rf cp They have professional worker help you. I like to buy cheap rf gold
here.
Score: 0
Here is the eve isk site.
eve online isk is the regular site.
we supply cheap eve isk.
I like to buy isk here.
Score: 0
In less than 5 years, the internet will be hosted by Bob Saget. As it is, he's just biding his time.
Score: 0
IANAL, but in so far as I am aware of Copyright law, it is present law that it is not the distributors responsibility to identify copyright infringement, but the copyright holders responsibility to identify and notify the distributor. So, in this case it would not be YouTube's responsibility but Viacom's. Of course, part of the whole issue here is that the content owners in the video and audio businesses do not want to be performing that responsibility themselves - they just want to reap the benefits. That said, if a content owner does complain, then the distributor should take down the content and provide notice to the originator (e.g. whoever uploaded it) so that there can be a proper appeals process. Moreover, this has been how copyright law has worked since the start.
Score: 0
this is like suing the internet company because someone uploaded illegal content on Google.. i can see it now... viacom tries to say that aol created their isp specifically with the intent for people to upload those videos... it should not be youtubes job to enforce the law.. it is police who should do this when contacted to do so by viacom... then with a court order have that content removed.. and then if need will be sue the user.. .... this is like sueing gun makers for killing people.. youtube should be required to inform users of the law and the consequences .. if people are smart enough to upload this content then they are smart enough to face the consequences... however i do not believe they should start suing every user.. this content being provided in no way has a negative effect on viacom.. if so i would like to see them to prove that a person who otherwise would have bought they content choose instead to get the experience through youtube.. a compromise should be reached.. allowing approved content to be displayed and any non complete material such as clips... all of which should be considered free promotion... the future is just going to bring more of this and unless there is a desire for endless lawsuits they will eventually have to embrace free digital media and change their primary source of revenue to an alternative source. let us be realistic they have every right to sue the users violating the law however we cant have that ridiculous behavior and neither can we have a rampant revolt ... we must compromise.
Score: 0
Has Viacom lost any money in this? Most likely no, with comedy central content and whatever else Viacom owns, if anything; YouToogle is helping them, almost a promo thing.
The people who say Youtube steals Viacom videos are dumba**es; video content is uploaded by users, and the hosts aren't going to spend their whole lives fighting off people who upload copyrighted content, and it's almost useless trying.
Viacom is owned by a greedy old fart, he's lost nothing from this. I bet one thing though, he'd use the billion to start a dozen new crap shows on his TV networks.
It's funny, I always saw NBC as the harsh ones about this considering their content is removed the quickest; but they never turned to anything like this...sheesh...
GoogleTube, don't pay up, just delete as much as you can; you've probably HELPED Viacom in this enough already.
Score: 0
As always, these boards are filled with the RIAA/MPAA goons.
Score: 0
And they keep trying to silence the truth...
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
Score: 0
I know I'm really getting sick of the "entertainment" industry. As if this is some big awful thing done by Youtube... anything posted anyways is some tiny, short, low quality video clip. Perhaps they should be paying us for even watching it.
Score: 0
The Napster comparisons are valid. It's time to decentralize. Google should provide their own toolkit that allows people to encode their own videos and then publish and host their videos on their own server space. For those who wish to host their videos on YouTube still, there should be a system of accountability setup wherein the person is more directly identifiable.
YouTube wasn't meant for piracy - it's for sharing stupid videos of people falling off of roofs.
And you know what ... what really confuses me? Why are there celebrity nude video sites on the Internet? They've been making huge profit DIRECTLY from users for redistributing the juicy parts of movies for over 10 years. I do not understand why the movie industry has not cracked down on the racketeering that happens on such sites. Furthurmore, when a performer appears in a movie and agrees to disrobe, they are either doing it for the money, or doing it because they believe in the final product as a whole and deem it appropriate. They aren't doing it because they want their name next to some outrageous statement about what a 14 year old from the ghetto believes that they were doing.
I support actions such as what Viacom is doing - but only if they are directed properly. Hopeully YouTube -will- put in place some sort of system to allow moderation. Hell, Wikipedia manages it some how. And then hopefully media companies will find some time to clean up the web a little bit by getting rid of the racketeering circles that pollute the Internet with their cheesy porn sites.
The Internet is young and has too much junk on it. (and no, celeb clips aren't junk - just the sites are)
Score: 0
youtube is to video as napster was to audio.
and still "cash rules everything around me"
has anything changed?
Score: 0
Napster was a free p2p program, there were no profits made on it, and it was primarily used for piracy of music though they didn't actually host any files. Youtube is owned by a large company who is making a profit on it, so they have a responsibility to make sure that the files they host are legal.
Score: 0
YouTube steals other peoples work!! They are the reason the MPAA companies are starting to fail!! The courts must stop it NOW!!
Long live Viacom
Score: 0
What? You mean the crap they put on TV? I guess thats our fault.
Score: 0
"Long live Viacom " ... haha
nice sarcasm.
Score: 0
What a stupid lawsuit. Viacom should realize people are gonna share clips of their shows whether it be on Google or any number of websites that allow users to upload video. Remember the music industry ended up having to learn to live with MP3 and people wanting to use the format over a CD or cassette the hard way when people stopped buying stuff from them because of them going after individual users who downloaded a song. Viacom is gonna have to learn that anyone with a video capture device is gonna be able to copy anything off TV and there's nothing they can do to stop it. They should had learned that lesson when the VCR was invented. Even if Youtube is shut down, people are gonna use other lesser known video sharing sites...which ironically is where a bunch of the wrestling videos went after WWE's crackdown.
Score: 0
This is probably demonstrative of how little editorial control YouTube has, or exercises over what makes it on to the website. In other words they don't give a "f", unless someone complains.
Score: 0
Looooong time coming. Google had to have done risk/cost/loss analysis when they picked up Youtube, else they are morons. And we know they aren't. Google will likely settle with Viacom holding a minority stake in Google, but I doubt much cash will change hands.
Strange business model. I watch less youtube than I did a year ago, and I don't expect to watch much next year, either. The competitors are catching up. I already like the interface of Google's competitors much better.
Score: 0
I hate Viacom but they are in the right here. It is about time Google gets taken down a few notches too, they think they can do anything they want to lately. Google is the next Microsoft.
Score: 0
When they impersonate you then you know you really pissed them off...
Hahaha nice job, now you have a fanclub lol
Score: 0
Well...if the RIAA was allowed to do it why shouldn't Viacom??? I don't agree with the concept altogether, but the politicians can't play favorites...if you allowed one to do it then all others should be allowed too. I think the only ones really making the biggest monies out of this are the F***ing politicians. Viacom and Google both share their profits with their shareholders, the politicians don't have to share their loot with anyone.
Score: 0
I'm all for the rights of those who create content. Most of you know well my stance on that.
This is absurd. Google is not at fault here. They provide a service. The service is good, the opportunities for creativity and expression are phenomenal.
While the opportunities for abuse are also great, it is not Google who is committing the abuse. Honestly, the only way Google could prevent this is by disallowing the posting of content by individuals not in "the business". This would be the complete opposite of the sites intent.
Your content is easy to rip, convert and post. That's *your* problem, not Google's, and you can take it up with your producers and the people who are distributing it.
...or you can adapt and change with the times, which would probably be much easier and profitable in the long-run.
Score: 0
Actually, this is the same Open-Source/Propritary discussion.
Sites like CodePlex allows software developers to share their wares and source code -- but with their own software license. For Google/YouTube, they should allow posters to legally claim copyright ownership and then provide guidelines on sharing.
Being "legal" is not a difference of opinion; being "legal" is not infringing on existing legal boundaries. The court systems are meant to arbitrate any disputes.
This case is Viacom disputing the infringing behaviors of YouTube as an entity -- not the infringing end-users. Should YouTube choose NOT to moderate and arbitrate user-generated content within their site, then it is YouTube who is held responsible for activities conducted within the realm of their site.
Score: 0
You're comparing a media site to a code-sharing site? Really?
Why?
You're talking about two entirely different sets of folks there.
What the folks are uploading is illegal. I never once stated it wasn't. I firmly believe that other than banning users, and bringing down content when requested by the IP holders, Google/YouTube has no other responsibility
Score: 0
This article highlights the key points to the arguments Viacom is making: YouTube is allowing the redistribution of copywritten materials in an unlicensed manner, and YouTube has failed to keep their promise on providing a simple grievance process for copyright holders.
Video sharing sites should redesign their systems to properly license content ex post facto, and strive to only have a single copy(backups permitted) on their distrubution network. By augmenting a video distribution network, the video sharing site becomes a broadcaster. Think of a private television station that airs re-runs from otherwise competiting broadcasters -- but using their own satellites.
Better yet, a company like AKAMAI should leverage their network for content distribution through direct licensing with copyright holders. If Viacom's files are stored ONCE, YouTube simply has a link to the Akamai-cached copy, and YouTube pays Akamai and Viacom service and licensing fees...
YouTube can then charge advertisers customized rates based on copyright holders.
Booyah! That sounds like a business model right there!!!
Score: 0
That works great for content the labels and studios *want* on the site, but what about the content uploaded by individuals?
The intent of the site is not to become an IPTV service, but to allow for the free expression of individual creativity on a global scale.
Score: 0
If copyright holders trust the distribution network and the distribution network/service trusts the copyright holders to self-regulate and open their vaults, then all claims of illegalities become moot.
YouTube IS intending to become an IPTV service, minus the control systems. But YouTube should LEVERAGE a globally-scaled IPTV service and allow end-users to build their community. End-users may contribute to the IPTV service creatively, too... but the actual programming is user-created, not thrust upon them by broadcasters.
In the end, that's the only difference between YouTube being "rogue" and YouTube becoming a viable online broadcast network.
Score: 0
Awww poor Viacom, boo hoo.
They can't fleece their clients as much as they used too, awwwww poor babies.
F**K off Viacom.
Score: 0
I think the article does a fair job of bringing out some of the problems about file-sharing, but it casts things in much more doom and gloom than warranted, and neglects to include any quotes or arguments from Google or Youtube. I'm rather turned away by all this speculation and unsupported opinions ("settlement...appears impossible", "it could change the chemistry of video sharing services everywhere"), and much of the text seems to assume the truth of Viacom arguments, i.e. Google either loses or settles. This case might not even be "landmark" - all the other articles I've read so far have portrayed this event as a single case of bargaining gone wrong.
I hope companies start becoming more adaptive to the freer spirit of the Internet and the so-called user-created "Web 2.0", instead of trying to make the Internet conform to the existing systems of traditional media.
Score: 0
The problem is that individuals (or indeed companies who own IP) should be entitled to be rewarded for intellectual property they create and the internet (through free copying) is making that difficult.
--->I hope companies start becoming more adaptive to the freer spirit of the Internet and the so-called user-created "Web 2.0", instead of trying to make the Internet conform to the existing systems of traditional media.
Score: 0
Actually, this is what I meant by adapting to the Internet: Viacom shouldn't expect Youtube to police its user base. That's just not how things work on the Internet. Things are based upon trust in the goodwill of humanity. In this context, someone that posts a "OMG that's so cool" video shouldn't be seen as a copyright infringer, and the system that enables this shouldn't be seen as one either. Certainly, this is probably too idealistic a trust to extend to everyone, but it's working surprisingly well.
But I'll discuss what you said anyway.
There seems to be an equivocation between two different effects here. Different things happen depending on what exactly is being shared. One is quite desirable, the other is definately not.
The negative effect first: if the entirety of a small or one-off project appears on YouTube (i.e. AniMusic or something), that's certainly a problem - I won't deny that. That's what DMCA takedowns are for.
But if only a small part of the whole product is being distributed and it doesn't fall under the legal protections of parody and the such, I would doubt that seeing highlights of a certain show would make a person less likely to watch/purchase something (if they would have wanted to do so anyway). It's not like entire seasons of Viacom shows are appearing on Youtube, free for all the view. For example, an "underpants gnomes" South Park clip on YouTube, which was shown in my Comp Sci class, made many people in the class want to seek out more South Park. Many companies are out to emulate this sort of thing as a marketing scheme. However, this sort of thing is definitely a legal gray area - I expect that sustaining this sort of dynamic was a goal of what Viacom and Youtube were trying to bargain towards.
I just don't see what threat Viacom seems to see from Youtube at the current time, and there'd be plenty of benefits from just letting things be. If this is some sort of attempt to make a point, it'd just serve to drive things underground again, like after the demise of Napster and again after Kazaa - a lose-lose situation. Viacom is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or, in the views of some other articles, picking one baby and throwing out the rest). Are they blinded from the benefits of cooperation by the argument that they're somehow losing money from what, I think, they should consider free advertising?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. :)
Score: 0
A copyright holder must actively protect their copyright title unless they wish for their work to fall into the public domain (and thus lose all legal rights to monetize on said creative works).
Production companies and individual creative persons have invested time and resources into realizing their projects. If they wanted "fake" copies to float around (either "poster" print-outs or illegal reproductions) then they stand to lose their investments -- which is contrary to the spirit of a free market economy.
Disclaimer: I was almost a lawyer...
Score: 0
nasserd,
I think you are confusing Trademark and Copyright. Copyrights exist from the time of creation for the "artists" life plus 75 years. They can exert their copyright for this time period unless some one else can prove "prior art" to the copyrighted material.
Trademarks on the other hand must be "protected" by the owner. If Trademark infringement is allowed to continue the Trademark can be invalidated.
Score: 0
Actually, you seem to be confusing trademark, copyright, and patents.
Patents are subject to prior art reversals moreso than copyrights. The original terms of a copyright are that of creator's life + 75 years, although failure to assert one's rights (especially on a large scale) is akin to releasing the artwork into the public domain.
A simple example is a fiction novel. Should a second author reproduce sections (read: plagiarism) without proper consent (see inside pages of any novel and the holder of copyright), then this second author is subjecting him/herself for violations of copyright (read: illegal reproduction). Properly quoting or copying something with copyright holder's permission, however, is legal (read: legal reproduction).
If the first author says nothing during his lifetime (and much of his after-life, via his estate), then he has effectively opened up his original novel to the public domain -- where people may lift material (copy) from it without the need for consent. Claiming rightful ownership is necessary to let the world know that you still own the rights and have not given the stuff away for free.
[Trademarks are "coined" terms or brand names; Registered Trademarks are said names which are registed with the US Patent Office.]
Score: 0
Ahh, I see what your saying now. Yes, it is true if the legit owner never asserts his, her, or "it's" ownership of copyrighted material then it is true there is no one to protect it.
I don't think that means the copyright is null and void merely because someone did not assert the right as long as they can prove the claim. Which I could see becoming very difficult if there is many infringements from a number of different sources.
Score: 0
Wow, just wow. I'd love to see how good Google's legal team is with this. I'd like to see them prove that Viacom profits from youtube. To be frank, I may create a video business like youtube in the coming year so I need to know about this case. If this goes Viacom's way, then in no way can they profit from me later. A lump sum over potentially more incrementally. Amazing really. The capitalist dream.
Score: 0