# Youtube sued for 1 billion $$$ by Viacom.



## playstopause (Mar 14, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/biztech/03/13/viacom.youtube.ap/index.html

That had to happen one of these days...

Discuss.


----------



## eaeolian (Mar 14, 2007)

This is actually going to be a big test case.

Of course, it's also a big smoke-blowing to raise Viacom's stock price, but...


----------



## noodles (Mar 14, 2007)

I'd watch it if I were Viacom.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Mar 14, 2007)

noodles said:


> I'd watch it if I were Viacom.


+ rep lmfao  ...must spread around


----------



## Lozek (Mar 14, 2007)

Oooh dear, this could be intersting. The BBC has actaully just jumped into bed with Youtube to find a way of getting things running legit with BBC material.


----------



## Leon (Mar 14, 2007)

i agree with Viacom on one of their strong points. why the fuck would i watch their programs on tv if i can watch them on youtube? do i want to sit through 15 minutes of commercials? hell no. do i want to watch some lame show @ 10.30pm because i'm waiting to see what i really want to watch @ 11pm? hell no! i'll go watch it *right fucking now*, on the internet. do i care about the fuzzy quality of the videos? not really, i'm only after the content. if i want a cinematic experience, i'll pop in a DVD.

the world of entertainment has been changing ever since the advent of the internet. this lawsuit seems, to me, to be 'the old' trying to reclaim from 'the new' what was "their's" for so long.

instead of suing, Viacom might find a better place for their money in their own video site, streaming their own material, for a small fee. would i pay something like $0.50 to watch a full tv show online, sans commercials, whenever i want? i might.

but, instead of innovating, Viacom decides to take the American Business Express, suing. weak 



noodles said:


> I'd watch it if I were Viacom.



nice


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 14, 2007)

This might also be a small part of the changing of the guard. With sites like YouTube people are getting more and more control over what is seen and heard. The old guard corporations are scared. If they lose control over what people do for entertainment they go broke and go bye bye.


----------



## Leon (Mar 14, 2007)

exactly


----------



## Drew (Mar 14, 2007)

Did anyone else think this thread was an Austin Powers reference?


----------



## Carrion (Mar 14, 2007)

Meh, I'll just watch a video about it later, on Youtube.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 14, 2007)

This whole thing is bullshit and stinks. The only reason they're going after them is cause they have value. What about the thousands of lesser known sites hosting nothing but copyrighted television programs, movies, and shit? They won't go after them cause there's no profit to be made. And not for nothing but the networks are suffering for their own laziness. If they'd gotten off their collective asses and tried changing with the times they'd have their own websites with their content, possibly via subscription based or something so they can still make some cash. But no, they want to sit there and bitch just like the RIAA scoffed at the idea of the internet being a powerful medium. Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act a company is only liable if they don't remove copyrighted material after removal has been requested. Not for nothing, but it really is nearly impossible to filter and monitor every uploaded clip for copyright infringment. You'd also have to indeed know a clip is copyrighted. How would YouTube know if a small unknown independent film short is copyrighted and that a user is violating the copyrights? That would require a shitload of research with the amount of content they get. I think all these media conglomerates should fuck off and leave YouTube/Google alone. In the end piracy will always continue and they should be thankful that the most popular video site on the net is a legitimate business that's willing to work with them to reduce piracy!


Rev.


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 14, 2007)

^ Exactly!

The old media was slow to react. So now they have to use the courts to try and save their asses. Lame indeed.


----------



## leatherface2 (Mar 14, 2007)

very lame.........they should have thought about how cool a computer is these days........i havent bought a cd in a long time..........music biz and entertainment biz is all on a computer.remember napster? now we have limewire.................lol i also noticed the cd bins at hastings is not as big as it was a few years back............even if i did want to buy a cd ill go to amazon.com.they have a better selection.and it comes in the mail so i can just sit on my fat ass on the couch.lol


----------



## Naren (Mar 14, 2007)

I saw this yesterday and thought, "How pathetic."


----------



## nicknuisance (Mar 14, 2007)

come to terms with the Terminator, Skynet.


----------



## Scott (Mar 15, 2007)

Well I say it's about time. They had it coming. I'm a huge supporter of anyone who goes after YouTube/google for copyright infringement. 

You say "They're not going after all the other sites because there isn't any profit to be made"

Well it's not just that. How many people do you know that mainly go to www.angelfire.com/videocollection for their video viewing pleasure? Not many I bet. Of course it's YouTube getting targeted, because that's where everyone goes to view tv shows/concert dvd clips/etc.

Don't get pissed because they're exercising their right to protect whats theirs. Saying "They should work with YouTube instead. So that everyone wins!" Yeah well it isn't Viacom thats at fault here, so they don't have to do a damn thing to make sure everyone wins. If they decide to do that, then cool. It works for CBS. If not, then they're entitled to go that route as well.


Point is, Viacom can broadcast their material however they want. Either online or on tv. They own the rights to it. YouTube doesn't.


----------



## Mark. A (Mar 15, 2007)

I WUB youtube, fuck tv.


----------



## Buzz762 (Mar 15, 2007)

Universal tried to sue Youtube previously and at some point realized what a major mistake they were making. It provides a shitload of publicity, which they may not realize nor care about. They have every right to sue them, but I still think they are making a mistake in doing so.

I wonder how they would feel if google were to omit all Viacom sites from their search results?


----------



## Ancestor (Mar 15, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> How would YouTube know if a small unknown independent film short is copyrighted and that a user is violating the copyrights? Rev.




Any work is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is committed to any type of medium.


Still, I agree that it sucks, because no money is being made. I wouldn't bother with any of that stuff if I had to pay for it.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 15, 2007)

Ancestor said:


> Any work is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is committed to any type of medium.



Whether that is "technically" true or not I don't know but that's not the point. When I did my reading on registering material with the copyright offices it was made apparent that you need to register the material for full protection. Putting a clip online doesn't give a way for anyone to show they own the material. Your material is protected however, even unregistered, so long as you can *prove* you own it. If you can't prove it well you're shit out of luck. 


Rev.


----------



## Ancestor (Mar 19, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Whether that is "technically" true or not I don't know but that's not the point. When I did my reading on registering material with the copyright offices it was made apparent that you need to register the material for full protection. Putting a clip online doesn't give a way for anyone to show they own the material. Your material is protected however, even unregistered, so long as you can *prove* you own it. If you can't prove it well you're shit out of luck.
> 
> 
> Rev.



I do know, because I have an envelope full of information from the government about copyright and have taken two classes on internet law. Honestly, I don't really care about people posting movies or anything else online, because I have always made everything I recorded available for free. I think the internet should be about sharing information, not money. The point is that if you put a film (or piece of music) up on youtube.com that says "This is mine. I made it." That's probably a pretty good indication of copyright ownership. 

Also, just as ISPs can't be held liable for information posted through their service, I don't think youtube.com should be responsible either. You may see this, too, in the trial. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."


----------



## technomancer (Mar 20, 2007)

Late to the thread but what the hell.

Ancestor is right by the way, Google can go for the common carrier defence. There's also the fact that
1) as long as clips are less than 20 minutes in length they fall under fair use
2) when asked by Viacom to remove clips, Google complied, which is FULL compliance with copyright law

Unless the law REALLY gets bent on this case Viacom is shit out of luck. I'm all for copyright protection and enforcement, but Google was operating within the realm of copyright laws.


----------



## Hellbound (Mar 20, 2007)

FUCK MTV. that's all I have to say.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 20, 2007)

technomancer said:


> also the fact that
> 1) as long as clips are less than 20 minutes in length they fall under fair use



I'd like to know where you got this information from, if you have a link please share. I've heard people throw this same comment around each time with a different length. A friend of mine had a friend who worked as a radio DJ and he used to say bands are safe using movie samples in their songs so long as it doesn't exceed 15 seconds. All in all I read up on that and every legal site claimed quite the opposite. I did a quick lookup on Wikipedia and what's written there, in what I quickly squeezed in while here at work, seems to confirm what I've read before - that you can use material if you're including it in works of satire, acedemic value, news, research, etc. Here's a paragraph I pulled out:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include&#8212;

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 
the nature of the copyrighted work; 
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Posting an episode of a TV show on YouTube does not fall under fair use. BTW, that last line there mentions market value. Well, media conglomerates argue of the loss of money in advertising.


Rev.


----------



## technomancer (Mar 20, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> I'd like to know where you got this information from, if you have a link please share. I've heard people throw this same comment around each time with a different length. A friend of mine had a friend who worked as a radio DJ and he used to say bands are safe using movie samples in their songs so long as it doesn't exceed 15 seconds. All in all I read up on that and every legal site claimed quite the opposite. I did a quick lookup on Wikipedia and what's written there, in what I quickly squeezed in while here at work, seems to confirm what I've read before - that you can use material if you're including it in works of satire, acedemic value, news, research, etc. Here's a paragraph I pulled out:
> 
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include&#8212;
> 
> ...



I appear to have been in error on this clause. I had thought it was in a judgement I had been reading, but upon going back I'll be damned if I can find it. This still leaves the common carrier defense, as well as the fact that Google complied when requested to move clips, which is all that is required by the law with regard to copyrights. 

It can also be argued that there was no loss in market value, as YouTube served to advertise the shows that were uploaded, but I'm not going into that whole can of worms as at the end of the day there are studies supporting both sides so it boils down to opinion and whose studies you believe.


----------



## Drew (Mar 20, 2007)

technomancer said:


> It can also be argued that there was no loss in market value, as YouTube served to advertise the shows that were uploaded, but I'm not going into that whole can of worms as at the end of the day there are studies supporting both sides so it boils down to opinion and whose studies you believe.



An excellent point, actually. I'd just been thinking of it on the level that saying they were losing advertising revinue is one thing, but demonstrating it is another, but it's actually more complicated than I'd thought, it seems...


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 20, 2007)

technomancer said:


> It can also be argued that there was no loss in market value, as YouTube served to advertise the shows that were uploaded



Ah.... but the shows aren't what brings the money it's the commericals! Shows are free to watch, as a result the money used to fund making these shows comes through commercials (ie. - "This episode of Heroes brought to you in part by Honda!"). If all those clips on YouTube had the commercials included in the clips we probably wouldn't even be here discussing this cause it would be hard for them to argue monetary loss as their sponsor's advertisements would still be reaching the masses... shit... probably even more so!


Rev.


----------



## drshock (Mar 20, 2007)

I will kill anyone who fucks with my Youtube.


----------



## ibzrg1570 (Mar 20, 2007)

Although I sympathize with Viacom, there really is no way of solving this situation, as piracy will always be around, no matter what companies do about it. That's why a lot of online music stores are thinking about getting rid of DRM because hackers will inevitably get around it. Viacom has the right to sue, but I don't think doing that will put them in a good light because lots of people with internet access use YouTube. Also, it's not like YouTube itself is posting these videos. If anything, users should be sued. If all the companies in the entertainment industry did this, they might as well have the internet banned by the federal government. This is completely impractical, so the best way to do it would be to innovate and find a way around it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 20, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> A friend of mine had a friend who worked as a radio DJ and he used to say bands are safe using movie samples in their songs so long as it doesn't exceed 15 seconds



Its like the thing that i used to see when i'd be into ROMs. "You have 24 hours to try this, if you don't own it, you must delete it." I later found out that no such clause exists and if you don't actually own the game you aren't legally permitted to download the rom at all to begin with. Its just something somebody came up with to make it look legit and has no founding in actual law.


----------



## technomancer (Mar 20, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Ah.... but the shows aren't what brings the money it's the commericals! Shows are free to watch, as a result the money used to fund making these shows comes through commercials (ie. - "This episode of Heroes brought to you in part by Honda!"). If all those clips on YouTube had the commercials included in the clips we probably wouldn't even be here discussing this cause it would be hard for them to argue monetary loss as their sponsor's advertisements would still be reaching the masses... shit... probably even more so!
> 
> 
> Rev.



But to prove loss of advertising revenues they'd have to prove that they lost TV viewers to YouTube, which there is really no way to do. Like I said, unless the law gets MAJORLY reinterpreted in Viacom's favor they're throwing away a lot of money on this lawsuit.

Also looking at the market caps I'm waiting for the announcement that Google acquired Viacom


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 21, 2007)

technomancer said:


> Also looking at the market caps I'm waiting for the announcement that Google acquired Viacom



  I wouldn't be surprised if in the not so distant future that actually happened!  


Rev.


----------



## leatherface2 (Mar 21, 2007)

nicknuisance said:


> come to terms with the Terminator, Skynet.



holy shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11


----------



## Ancestor (Mar 21, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> the nature of the copyrighted work;
> the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
> ...



It could fall under fair use, but may not. U.S.C. 17, Sec. 107 has those four tests you quoted. First, why is it posted? To make a profit? To educate? Even teachers have been found in violation when copying large sections of books.

Next, What is the nature of the material? If it's news footage, then it probably falls under fair use.

Third, how much was used? A small portion is probably OK, but not the whole program.

Last, what is the impact on the market value? In other words, if you're diminishing the value of copyrighted material, fair use doesn't apply.

(Ferrera, Lichtenstein, Reder, and Bird, 2004)

It's the fourth that seems to be the most important, which is why I say youtube posts are irrelevant to copyright. The quality always sucks. If it's something I really like, I'll buy it if it's available. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy it anyway. Damn, of course I'm not going to buy a copy of Prince's superbowl performance. Neither will I watch the game to see it. Ever. But I will check it out quickly just for reference. And that helps Prince.


Reference

Ferrera, G., Lichtenstein, S., Reder, M., & Bird, R. (2004). Cyberlaw Text and Cases. United States: West Legal Studies.


----------

