Good for Google !

Can I be the videoblogger for this ?

Lots of action ahead of us!

Isn’t it possible that they will just drop the suit if they see things are not going well? The media guys certainly do not want to create a precedent in favor of YouTube.

Go Google!!

In a way it might look as a joint ambush for google by competitors. Looks like google still haven’t used all the ammo.

Madness? THIS. IS. YOUTUUUUUUBE!!!

Many if not most seem to be of the opinion that Viacom and Google will end up “playing nice” and settle this suit.

However, given how much time, work, and money V’s already spent carefully documenting the huge amount of copyright infringement SueTube has already committed–plus the intransient position of Sumner–that’s not going to happen.

He’s out for Google’s blood, and; while this suit will likely take a year or two (or more) to reach its conclusion; is not going to stop until he gets what he rightfully feels he’s entitled to . . . and with upwards of 100,000 infringements at up to $150,000 per, Google’s mistake video “investment” could cost them a couple billion more than they bargained for.

Reminds me of that old radio commercial for, I believe, Jiffy Lube, selling people of the importance of oil changes: “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.”

FYI: I worked a few years at a online music service provider but I’m /not/ a lawyer or even well versed with this, I’m just saying it as I remember it

In music licensing there’s the 30 second rule.. anyone can distribute samples as long as they are shorter than 30 seconds.

How does this work for video? anyone know?

I’m really sad to say but I think Viacom has a slight step ahead of Google in this case, I’m 110% behind Google but I think legalwise Viacom has a more solid case.

DMCA safe harbor FTW.

Does anyone else think that maybe google is getting a little too confident?

A heavily watched ‘traditional media’ business morning show this morning just outright bashed gootube and their policy. How many other media outlets will be doing the same?

From a user perspective I’m only going there to watch copyright-ed content, so what does that really say?

How appealing is it for an advertiser to associate with you tube videos not having any guarantees on content quality & branding?

I think one of the biggest problems in our industry is that we are becoming too myopic in two aspects.

1. Thinking that our solutions will always prevail
2. That America really cares, newsflash they don’t 92 percent of American’s don’t know what an RSS feed is. You can be damn sure they won’t care where they go to get they’re content as long as its there and easy to get. So either google should start playing nice or they should start producing top notch content.

Don’t get me wrong I love google just as much as the next nerd but they’re arrogance is stifling they’re ability to create comprehensive solutions for people who don’t dream in microformats.

ok, i undertand that the whole deal is about copyright and bla bla bla, but why did viacom had not done anything when youtube was not googles’? there’s got to be something else here. Anyways i also think that viacom has a step ahead of google in this case.

Viacom has the legal precedent on its side. Google will have to pay. I certainly favor Youtube more than any other platform, but Google hasn’t done anything to play fair either.

I mean yes, youtube does a service to all, but the people who make the content should have a piece of the pie, that’s just capitalism at its core.

“ok, i undertand that the whole deal is about copyright and bla bla bla, but why did viacom had not done anything when youtube was not googles’?”

Who would you rather sue? A couple of (admittedly paper-wealthy) young men with a video website, or what is arguably the biggest, richest net based business in the history of the planet?

datter

“…Let’s fight this out, in front of a jury.”

Perfect position to take! Hopefully the EFF suit, representing the thousands of people who lost their legit videos in that earlier purge, will go to court first and set a precedent.

Google has WAY more money than Viacom to pay shark lawyers too.

Does any lawyer here have any sense of the legal issues surrounding this (I’m looking at you Mike)? It seems to me that for Google to go to trial with this they must feel fairly confident that they can beat Viacom. It is also quite possible that Viacom weren’t expecting this to go to trial, and so haven’t actually thought through whether or not they have a good case, seeing it more as a bargaining chip.

What’s the outcome likely to be, and what are the issues involved?

- Google Lawyer team will become famous for winning this case.

- Google wouldn’t have let it get this far / if they didn’t think they had a 70-80% chance of winning this case.

Go Viacom.

Looks like a good fight brewing…

—
We Will Create Your Very Own Domain Name - http://PowerNamer.com

It’s not just about copyrighted material, but who has control of the video advertising industry moving forward. With Google and their complete dominance of search today, media companies realize there are billions of dollars of video advertising inventory at risk and must take a stand right now.. This verdict will set a huge precedent for all companies big and small.

DATTER wrote: “ok, I understand that the whole deal is about copyright and bla bla bla”

Datter have you ever created an Idea or written a story? if so HOW would you feel if somebody stole it? You would be upset? right?.

Copyright protects people ideas, its part of the constitution. It protects our intellectual property, Without it nobody would be encourage to create anything.

Viacom is just mad because YouTube stole their flavor. Those clips have been around for years and YouTube finally got them exposure. Hopefully it doesn’t come down to a bitter struggle, which it will. Kudos to pallet jack on his Google Lawyers comment; no doubt that will come true for that team. It’s why I am going into intellectual property law.

I don’t think its smart for anyone to go against YouTube/Google and not for obvious reasons. They kill YouTube they simpley kill their future business online in which we, the viewers demand.

All that YouTube has done is what the Networks and people like Viacom were NOT smart enough to do from the offset.

Its video on demand, and we demand it. This is the success of YouTube.

I live in the UK and personally visit YT for shows that can take a year plus to ever get shown here and I am unwilling to wait to view.

What people like Viacom should have done was tap into this ready made audience, instead YouTube is now their competitor in terms of the contracts and commitments they’ve made to Joost and so the only way to succeed is to make a dent in the competition; YouTube.

I hope Google pull out something that wipes the floor with Viacom.

I don’t get why most think Viacom is ahead on this. I think the DMCA safe harbor is pretty clear — so long as the web operator takes down the copyrighted work as soon as the copyright holder complains they are okay.

To me, Viacom’s claim that YouTube is not a “web operator” under the safe harbor is novel. I think YouTube is ahead on this, but it’s pretty much a toss up. As far as I know, there’s no legal precedent on either side here.

Yeah!! Google should have a very very good lawyer team!!

As much as youtube provides an awesome service, government and law are not here to make consumers happy — look at the recent laws concerning internet radio. In that case, stations were actually paying, but the law and the record companies said they weren’t paying enough.

In the case of youtube,content creators are not getting paid at all. That’s a much weaker position to operate from. If google were to win what would it say about copyright law?

And legal analysis aside, from a business perspective I have to agree with Verity. YouTube created a huge marketplace for videos that no on was making money off of to begin with. Now old clips from sporting events, SNL, etc. that rarely saw the light of day are being viewed by thousands. And these “on demand” viewings can create an entirely new, and better, form of targeted marketing.

Why not put a 5-10 sec targeted advertisement at the beginning of each video and have the licensor split the profits? If someone searches for an old SNL clip — cue up the ad for a “Best of SNL” collection ….

The case will come down to ONE thing: Can Viacom show a real world material loss for their content being on YouTube?

Answer: No. Its that simple, and it’s all Google has to convey to 12 non technical people.

( Google lawyer )”…If you are having a garage sale, and someone makes a copy of the hand written sign you have advertising your garage sale, then puts that sign up in a new neighborhood. Do you benefit? Yes, of course, more people will see you are having a garage sale and come by…”

Case dismissed.

Tom, admittedly, I don’t think the DMCA safe harbor was meant for a company like YouTube. It came out before streaming video on the internet was a real thought — let alone as ubiquitous as it is today.

But Courts are simply suppose to interpret the law. The legal question should simply be — does YouTube/Google fall under the the safe harbor of the DMCA? If yes, they cannot be guilty of Copyright infringement. Case closed.

If the Copyright laws need to be changed to deal with this new video-era on the net, then that’s Congress’ job. IMO, it’s not fair to hold YouTube liable for something when they were clearly abiding the law as it’s currently written.

GOOGLE IS FREAKIN’ BAD ASS. I want Google to be my boyfriend #2 - I wonder if Google would go on a date with me… just one.

Todd, the analogy doesn’t quite work. A better one is:

“…If you are having a garage sale, and someone makes a verbatim copy of the whole sale, the display tables, the signage and the items for sale (but without stealing them from you, only cloning them), and then sets that sale up in a different neighborhood, do you benefit?”

Anyway, I’m not sure the case does just come down to that. I suspect (although I don’t know much about US law; I’m British), that it will depend on whether Google showed due dilligence in attempting to prevent copyright abuse and responding when asked to remove content in an appropriate manner, and whether YouTube is inherently designed to enable people to breach copyright (as was argued in the p2p file sharing battles).

Tonight we watch in Hell!

Most of the content on YouTube isn’t Google’s property and they’re not paying for the use of it. Even worse, Google makes money with ads on the video pages. So basically they make money with stolen material. How much I love Google for its great products, this time I must say that Viacom is right. But at the other side, I don’t want YouTube to disappear.

If Google wins this fight, I am setting up a website call YouShareAnything where you can upload any copyrighted material you want (software, games, music, books, full-length movies, etc.). But don’t worry, I’ll take down your material if you just ask… (and it’s not my fault if someone reuploads it the next day).

But seriously, if Google can hide behind the DMCA - how are their videos any different than any other type of media? Why isn’t there a YouTunes out there yet?

I am setting up a website call YouShareAnything where you can upload any copyrighted material you want (software, games, music, books, full-length movies, etc.). But don’t worry, I’ll take down your material if you just ask… (and it’s not my fault if someone reuploads it the next day).

Um, Mitch? It’s called rapidshare. Or megaupload. Or mininova. Or etc etc.

I should point out that GooTube’s problem is that it *doesn’t* qualify for the DCMA safe harbor because 1) it makes money off the infringing content, and 2) by use of the tagging system, it’s immediately on notice to infringing material 3) whether or not the owner actually says “CSI” is mine IFF they’ve already pointed that out before. Because of the tags, GooTube has notice and it becomes their responsibility to make sure the material isn’t infringing: they have an *affirmative* duty.

At the same time, Viacom will be hard-pressed to show *actual* damages.
That seems to be the issue here: Viacom *could* show that it had damages, but it may also be unable to do so.

That’s why the common opinion is that they’ll settle: Viacom will push for settlement to avoid the big IF about what sort of damages they can prove. However, if more facts come to light about those damages, look for Google to settle to avoid a billion-dollar hammer.

IALBTINMRN

I’ve been saying for a while that Viacom doesn’t want this to go to trial simply because it doesn’t want to win.

Why?

Remember iFilm.com? Of course you don’t, it’s crappy beyond belief. But they are just like YouTube where people can upload any video they want, copyrighted or not. And just like YouTube, if you complain, they will take it down. And like YouTube, there are copyrighted videos on there.

And who owns iFilm? Viacom of course. It’s simple, if Viacom wins, they won’t get the $1 billion they are seeking, they will get far less. Also, they will be setting a precedent that can be used against them. Hmmm. Getting sued using your own legal precedent. I’m no lawyer but even I can’t see the benefit of taking this to trial for Viacom.

I can see a lot of you aren’t meant to be lawyers.

Heddy,

Not quite - and you make my point quite nicely. RapidShare and MegaUpload are blind hosts. They don’t tag or provide searching to the content they host. MiniNova is a bittorrent lister so they aren’t hosting any content - it’s p2p.

It’s seems pretty clear that what youTube is doing enables piracy in a far more organized (and profitable) way than the bittorrent lists and filesharing hosters do.

It seems to me that if Google wins, all bets are off on copyrighted material.

I would like to know who the presiding judges will be for this case. Can anyone find out some info/bio’s on the judge/judge’s?

Michael A - Blogerrati emeritus!
http://www.businessweek.com/ma.....op+stories

It’s interesting because with the convergence in IP, I think Google’s wise to stand its ground. It has a good position, in my opinion, for when and how things will shake out in the market once everything’s over a single channel.

Plus I want our industry to prevail over entertainment.

Look for Google to have a larger DC presence or, EEEK!, open a DC office to lobby for reform after they settle from a prolonged 1 year losing battle with the professional litigators in LA

Jury Nullification anyone?

Joost can overkill youtube innovations.

I heard Google is going to find the *REAL* killer after the trial!

This will not be resolved for at least 2 years. Appeals Appeals Appeals

This trial will most likely go on for years and years…by then google will have bought ten other youtubes.

Clothing line

What happen to the 100,000 visitors or even the 60,000 visitors techcrunch use to get?…their down to 48,000 a day???

Going to trial does buy Google some time. Just look at how long the SCO/IBM circus has been going on. In a couple of years, things may look very different in the online video market and a settlement may look more attractive to both sides. Or the outcome of the trial just won’t matter. Microsoft lost the anti-trust trial and paid a few billions out of petty cash. It doesn’t make Netscape or Java (on the desktop) any less crushed. If YouTube achieves hegemony while the lawsuit is going on, whatever they eventually pay in damages is well worth it. Of course Viacom could try for an injunction early on, but they’re pretty unlikely to get it as courts are generally reluctant to issue injunctions that would put the defendant out of business until the plaintiff’s case is proven.

# 38 Mitch states: “It seems to me that if Google wins, all bets are off on copyrighted material.”

Mitch, you have eloquently summed up the miscalculation of Via(gra)com’s leadership — yes, they could lose, and yes, they could lose big.

In March when Via(gra)com filed the lawsuit, there was a chorus of approval from the anti-Google camp, which basically yelped: “You go, Viacom! You win just by filing the lawsuit!”

A month of cooling heads later, the following are possible scenarios:

1) The jury could decide that Viacom does not have a case, and DMCA covers YouTube. As soon as that verdict is announced, there will be an eruption of cheers from the offices of MySpace Video, Yahoo Video, Microsoft Soapbox, Metacafe, Grouper, Revver, and other dozens, if not hundreds, of video hosting services.

2) The jury could find that YouTube is protected under DMCA but Viacom deserves some compensation, so they look at YouTube’s finance and discover that it only had $15 million income in 2006 (as reported), and let’s say it made another $15 million in the first 4 months of 2007, so the working number is $30 million, but Viacom cannot claim all of it, and a fair jury could decide that Viacom should get 10% of the pot, so Viacom goes home with a “significant victory” of $3 million award.

Yes, Google could lose, but I’ll let the anti-Google camp write that scenario, or better yet, just go read Mark Cuban’s blog.