
Viacom slaps Google with $1 billion lawsuit - wbornor
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/biztech/03/13/viacom.youtube.reut/index.html
======
e1ven
This is a great thing, and IMO, exactly why Google bought Youtube.. They paid
for this lawsuit.

When you think about it, everything Google does, the Cache, Google Groups, The
Image search, and even their golden baby, Search, requires that they deal with
the copyrighted material of other people.. It's their bread and butter. They
can do it under the law, or at least their lawyers are convinced they can,
because of a legal concept known as Common Carrier (Some people in the
audience will notice I'm simplifying. I'm trying to encourage discussion, not
write a legal essay ;)

The Common Carrier clause, written under the (otherwise) dreaded DMCA, says
that carriers, such as Earthlink/aol/etc are just carrying information, and
they aren't responsible for it.. It provides rules, which say you need to take
things down when you're asked, but you're otherwise not culpable- As long as
you take it down when asked, you're OK.

Now, with Youtube, before Google invested anything in it, Google sees a
lawsuit coming which could change that.. They KNOW that youtube is likely to
be sued, and don't want to have the judge define the laws in a way which
screws them over.. They know this lawsuit is coming one way or another, and
that Youtube is poor, so their legal defense is likely to..well..suck.

Google realizes that if they buy Youtube, they can use their considerable
legal muscle and financial capital to DEFEND youtube, and to make sure that
they law isn't redefined in a way that screws them..

Since the US system works by a process of Common Law, the precedent is
binding. That means that this case will be VERY influential in dertermining
any other cases. And it's THOSE that is worried about.

THAT's why Google bought Youtube. They want this Lawsuit very badly.

Well, As an aside- There's also the line of reasoning that Sequoia Capital was
heavily pushing Google for the acqusition.. YouTube was smart/lucky enough to
convince Sequoia to invest, which gives Google a good inventive to do the
buyout.. That said, I think this was an ancillary factor, not a primary one.
Winning this lawsuit is worth a billion to Google by itself.

Ways to prove me wrong? If Google settles, I'm full of shit.

~~~
Readmore
I completely agree. Google knew that they needed to be involved in this
lawsuit or the future of their business, and perhaps the Internet, could be in
jeopardy. If YouTube had to settle or try to fight the lawsuit on their own it
is very likely that the outcome wouldn't have been favorable for Google. By
buying them and taking the lawsuit on themselves Google is able to use their
warchest to fight for the future of the Internet. I'm very excited to see how
this plays out.

------
pg
This is like a beaten defender grabbing a forward's shirt as he runs by. Time
to sell VIA and buy GOOG.

------
mynameishere
Seems odd to witness a lot of business-type people arguing (or at least
leaning) in favor of copyright infringement.

I mean, we could argue for a while about whether some kid should be allowed to
download songs off of bittorrent. That's just some kid. But then, you have a
huge corporation doing almost the same (okay, okay, with all due
equivocations, like: They're only hosting/distributing, not uploading). Well,
google isn't distributing video out of a love of the artform. I mean, person X
builds/owns something, and person Y profits from it, or at least tries to. See
no problem there? It might come down to "might makes right" here, if google
has sufficiently expensive lawyers.

The seemingly obvious solution is to tack a 15-second advertisement on the
videos and then share the proceeds with the owner.

------
far33d
While I'm on the YouTube side of this one, the web does place content creators
in something of a dilemma. If content producers can't make revenue from the
web, how are they going to afford to make quality content in the first place?
While a lot of tech has brought the cost of media creation down, the only
profitable web-exclusive stuff right now is content that can be created for
free. Some of the zero-cost content is good, but most if it is just kids
hurting themselves for a laugh.

What good is it to make money as a content aggregator if no one can afford to
create content in the first place? There's a market here, I'm just not sure
what it is.

~~~
e1ven
It's not nearly that simple though- Google position isn't "copyright doesn't
matter", it's that "Look, we'll take it down if you ask. The law says that's
OK! Why are we still arguing"?

Take a look up a few posts for my perspective ;)

~~~
far33d
I'm not saying it is that simple. Google is in the right here. They obey the
law, they give customers exactly what they want.

The issue is on the supply side: How can content producers adapt to this
altered economy? Right now, their answer has been to sue and hold tightly to
the old business models. My argument is more nuanced than just protecting
copyright -- I believe there is a way to make money producing quality content,
but maybe not for the big, hollywood sized producers. I'm more interested in
how to empower the people in-between viacom and the lone camcorder.

------
JMiao
This is just total hogwash -- old media suing new media in the name of
copyrighted content to ultimately protect distribution control.

------
danielha
Looks like partnership negotiations completely fell through.

------
Readmore
Begun the copyright war has... Yoda

