Youtube sued for [*Dr Evil voice*] One Beelion dollars

[andyandy]

MEDIA conglomerate Viacom sued Google and its internet video-sharing site YouTube for more than $US1 billion ($1.27 billion) today in the biggest challenge yet to the web search leader's strategy to dominate the online video market.

The lawsuit accuses Google and its popular online video unit of "massive intentional copyright infringement," threatening its ambitions to turn YouTube into a key distributor of entertainment and outlet for advertising.

Viacom has been the most vocal critic of YouTube as it sought to negotiate payment for use of its programming. Last month, the company demanded YouTube pull more than 100,000 video clips uploaded by users to its site.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21379338-663,00.html

[geni]

To be expected. Given the DMCA I suspect google will win but we shall see.

[geni]

That said viacom could go try and use the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd case against youtube but the existance of the youtube blog might complicate that. Should be interesting to watch.

[EvilSmurf]

Interestingly, Mark Cuban (www.blogmaverick.com) seems to think that Youtube doesn't fall under the "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA, since they apparently filter content. This will be an interesting test case to see if they do.

and the Viacom/Youtube beef is Soo last month (http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/02/04/gootube-terrorizes-copyright-owners-by-withholding-filters/)

[geni]

Interestingly, Mark Cuban (www.blogmaverick.com) seems to think that Youtube doesn't fall under the "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA, since they apparently filter content. This will be an interesting test case to see if they do.

Indications suggest so far they would since they don't change the content they do allow


and the Viacom/Youtube beef is Soo last month (http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/02/04/gootube-terrorizes-copyright-owners-by-withholding-filters/)

From the comments:

"I don't know anyone who can identify copyrighted material when they see it."

It isn't that hard. While there is stuff you wont be sure about there is a lot of stuff you can be pretty certain about.

[robinson]

This is funny. Almost everything is copyrighted.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

[Smidge]

I'm not sure why Viacom is getting it's knickers in a knot so much over this. So many broadcasters and programme makers could follow this course of action but clearly they aren't as determined to make the same hue and cry about it.

The BBC have negotiated a deal with YouTube - Viacom and others could do the same. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/02/you_tube.shtml

Viacom has a recent history of getting in a hissy fit with YouTube while others are happy to let their creations/content be broadcast to a broader audience or to work with YouTube. It makes Viacom look like the bad tempered, sulky older teenager who's pissed off that a younger sibling gets more attention due to their simple charm.

I know there is potentially a lot of money at stake but why don't they want to work, or can't work, with YouTube - surely that would be far more to their advantage?

[JamesM]

I know there is potentially a lot of money at stake but why don't they want to work, or can't work, with YouTube - surely that would be far more to their advantage?

This is probably part of Viacom's negotiation strategy.

[andyandy]

This is probably part of Viacom's negotiation strategy.

i doubt either side will actually want to go to court - my money's on a large settlement and exclusive Viacom-youtube content deal :)

[hgc]

Interestingly, Mark Cuban (http://www.blogmaverick.com) seems to think that Youtube doesn't fall under the "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA, since they apparently filter content. This will be an interesting test case to see if they do.

and the Viacom/Youtube beef is Soo last month (http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/02/04/gootube-terrorizes-copyright-owners-by-withholding-filters/)


Kudos to Cuban for his clear understanding. He said, just days before the purchase of Youtube by Google, that you'd have to be an idiot to buy Youtube; that all the media companies are just waiting for a deep-pocketed owner of the property to sue the pants off of (I paraphrase).

[Matthew Best]

The BBC have negotiated a deal with YouTube - Viacom and others could do the same.

I know there is potentially a lot of money at stake but why don't they want to work, or can't work, with YouTube - surely that would be far more to their advantage?

I don't know how true any of this is, but Phillippe Dauman says:

"Viacom has spent months trying to come to an agreement with Google and YouTube in order to provide our popular video content on the YouTube platform. Unfortunately, they refused to negotiate a reasonable licensing offer."

The press release also refers to "a great deal of unproductive negotiation".

Of course there's always the possibility that the whole thing is related to the fact that MTV recently announced it was laying off 10% of its workforce - perhaps they're in some financial trouble?

[geni]

I'm not sure why Viacom is getting it's knickers in a knot so much over this. So many broadcasters and programme makers could follow this course of action but clearly they aren't as determined to make the same hue and cry about it.

There was a japanese company that did. WWE and UFC have also worked to remove their material from youtube (in the case of UFC this only appears to apply to fights).


The BBC have negotiated a deal with YouTube - Viacom and others could do the same. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/02/you_tube.shtml


Not really. The BBC could make a deal because any income from their material is bonus. They don't quite work in the same way as Viacom (public service ethos and all that).


Viacom has a recent history of getting in a hissy fit with YouTube while others are happy to let their creations/content be broadcast to a broader audience or to work with YouTube. It makes Viacom look like the bad tempered, sulky older teenager who's pissed off that a younger sibling gets more attention due to their simple charm.

I know there is potentially a lot of money at stake but why don't they want to work, or can't work, with YouTube - surely that would be far more to their advantage?

Because google lied. And because after music videos they may well be the biggest rights holder on ripped off content.

The basic problem is that google wont/can't implement the video screening technology they promised. I'm going for can't. The effect of this is that it is imposible for a profit shareing deal to work because google have no idea how many people are watching viacom material. Thus profit shareing is somewhat triky.

This being the case Viacom's approach of useing a different service where they can offer higher quality but have more control (and likely a bigger share of the profits) makes sense.

[Smidge]

I don't know how true any of this is, but Phillippe Dauman says:

"Viacom has spent months trying to come to an agreement with Google and YouTube in order to provide our popular video content on the YouTube platform. Unfortunately, they refused to negotiate a reasonable licensing offer."

The press release also refers to "a great deal of unproductive negotiation".

Of course there's always the possibility that the whole thing is related to the fact that MTV recently announced it was laying off 10% of its workforce - perhaps they're in some financial trouble?
I'm not surprised Phillippe Dauman said that and in such strong terms - he's a Viacom board member and it's their press release. YouTube/Google are playing this very cool so far. So far, I like the way they're handling it.

Viacom come out with all their legal guns blazing full of fightin' talk and YouTube adopt a sit and wait approach. It seems that YouTube/Google are willing to tough it out. Good for them.

If the BBC, a long established, universally respected programme maker and broadcaster, can make a deal on their vast and desirable content surely Viacom could too. Not that their content is as desirable, IMHO. Tis all about the Benjamin's.

Viacom look as if they're being more unreasonable and greedy than is fair considering their content's possible worth. I stand by my petulant, sulky teenager -vs- charming younger sibling analogy!

Also, Viacom announced a online content deal with some no-mark, less well known (well, I'd never heard of them) provider a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to find the article. Viacom are have adopted the 'don't mess with the big boys' approach with YouTube.

[JamesM]

i doubt either side will actually want to go to court - my money's on a large settlement and exclusive Viacom-youtube content deal :)
Exactly - this is just sabre-rattling to concentrate GooTube's minds, with the added bonus (for Viacom) that Google must now have the fate of Napster in the back of their minds if things really do go pear-shaped.

[geni]

I'm not surprised Phillippe Dauman said that and in such strong terms - he's a Viacom board member and it's their press release. YouTube/Google are playing this very cool so far. So far, I like the way they're handling it.

Any other option would be legaly stupid.


Viacom come out with all their legal guns blazing full of fightin' talk and YouTube adopt a sit and wait approach. It seems that YouTube/Google are willing to tough it out. Good for them.

Again they have no choice.


If the BBC, a long established, universally respected programme maker and broadcaster, can make a deal on their vast and desirable content surely Viacom could too. Not that their content is as desirable, IMHO. Tis all about the Benjamin's.

BBC don't make their money from selling adspace and content. Viacom do. Doesn't have much impact on the BBC one way or another how people see their material. If you look at the BBC deal the only stuff they will be makeing money out of will be add on material rather than clips of shows. Such a deal would not be acceptable to Viacom.


Viacom look as if they're being more unreasonable and greedy than is fair considering their content's possible worth.

Not at all. Take away viacom stuff and youtube is worth a lot less. Take all the copyvios out and what is left isn't exactly great.


I stand by my petulant, sulky teenager -vs- charming younger sibling analogy!

More like real world grown up vs emo kid.


Also, Viacom announced a online content deal with some no-mark, less well known (well, I'd never heard of them) provider a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to find the article.

Joost. Offering Viacom more control and likely more money. May be small now but if they were the only place you could get viacom content I doubt it would stay that way


Viacom are have adopted the 'don't mess with the big boys' approach with YouTube.

No the law has (side effect of some of the provissions of the DMCA). Viacom have adopted a our patience is finite approach.

[Smidge]

There was a japanese company that did. WWE and UFC have also worked to remove their material from youtube (in the case of UFC this only appears to apply to fights).
I didn't hear about this. 'cuse my ignorance...! Maybe I missed it or maybe there wasn't such a hue and cry...

Not really. The BBC could make a deal because any income from their material is bonus. They don't quite work in the same way as Viacom (public service ethos and all that).
Yes, but they were still capable of making a deal of - that's the point.

Because google lied. And because after music videos they may well be the biggest rights holder on ripped off content.
I have no information on this and Google lying so I'll have to bow to your knowledge here and ask more - what or where did you read or see about this?

The basic problem is that google wont/can't implement the video screening technology they promised. I'm going for can't. The effect of this is that it is imposible for a profit shareing deal to work because google have no idea how many people are watching viacom material. Thus profit shareing is somewhat triky.
Interesting but the "can't" is, clearly, pure conjecture. How does the profit sharing work in other cases?

This being the case Viacom's approach of useing a different service where they can offer higher quality but have more control (and likely a bigger share of the profits) makes sense.
Viacom should promote the other user, compete and extoll the benefits of the content provided online there. (I can't remember the name of the company Viacom has struck a deal with - I mentioned it in the response above and was about to look for the article on that when I read you response and ... etc)

Taking this line with YouTube looks bad. The language they've used in their press release on this is deliberately angry and aggressive. Obviously, Viacom are a huge organisation and want to be taken seriously but their approach is heavy handed and ultimately negative.

YouTube already has a huge recognition factor and millions of users. If they want more money maybe they'll get it but I see this move as petty. YouTube has removed (and is constantly pressured to remove) any Viacom content. Viacom should concentrate on their new deal, promote the hell out of it's virtues and quality and moving on.

[Smidge]

Any other option would be legaly stupid.
-----
Again they have no choice.
-----
BBC don't make their money from selling adspace and content. Viacom do. Doesn't have much impact on the BBC one way or another how people see their material. If you look at the BBC deal the only stuff they will be makeing money out of will be add on material rather than clips of shows. Such a deal would not be acceptable to Viacom.
-----
Not at all. Take away viacom stuff and youtube is worth a lot less. Take all the copyvios out and what is left isn't exactly great.
-----
More like real world grown up vs emo kid.
----
Joost. Offering Viacom more control and likely more money. May be small now but if they were the only place you could get viacom content I doubt it would stay that way
----
No the law has (side effect of some of the provissions of the DMCA). Viacom have adopted a our patience is finite approach.

Look, I get all that - ie, the 'legally stupid' point, etc. (I presume you mean possibly 'legally imprudent'; 'legally stupid' sounds like a bizarre oxymoron). Any lawyer or law firm acts on direction from its client. The stance they've taken is in conjunction with their own feelings. It's not simply the law taking control here.

I don't believe Youtube fortunes, successor online life is based on Viacom content primarily. It's seems to be surviving despite begin instructed to remove 100,000's of clips of Viacom owned/produced content.

The BBC deal works that way, not simply because of the broadcasters ethos but because that's how the decided to work with YouTube.

Phillipe Dauman did not sound like a 'real world grown up' in his rhetoric. The 'emo' thing is American affectation that few outside of the US or a certain age group care about.

It seems we're at logger heads about this - our views are directly opposed.

Do you work for Viacom or one of the the many, many companies Viacom owns?

Does anyone remember the Haagen Das -vs- Ben & Jerry's whole mess? It kinda has that feeling to it.

EDIT:
Here the info on Joost and the deal Viacom announced they have with them. They should concentrate on this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379595.stm

[geni]

I didn't hear about this. 'cuse my ignorance...! Maybe I missed it or maybe there wasn't such a hue and cry...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6069692.stm


Yes, but they were still capable of making a deal of - that's the point.


A deal under terms that viacom would be insane to agree to. For the most part the deal is the bbc allows content at no charge to google.


I have no information on this and Google lying so I'll have to bow to your knowledge here and ask more - what or where did you read or see about this?


The intial deal was that youtube would provide filtering systems by a certian date. They have failed to do this.


Interesting but the "can't" is, clearly, pure conjecture.


Not it isn't. I have a reasonable understanding of what is posible in the field of image matching. Videos are to an extent just a harder case of that. Unless google have managed a seriously earth shattering breakthrough filtering for copyvios by computer remains imposible.


How does the profit sharing work in other cases?


That information is not availible to the public. The theoretical version is that every time someone clicks an ad next to a video showing your content you get some of the money from that click. The catch is google has no way of knowing if any given video contians your content.


Viacom should promote the other user, compete and extoll the benefits of the content provided online there. (I can't remember the name of the company Viacom has struck a deal with - I mentioned it in the response above and was about to look for the article on that when I read you response and ... etc)

Compete for the opertunity to make money from their own content? No that would not be a logical option. Far better get rid of those violateing your copyright so that you only have to compete with other people's content (something viacom have tended to be rather good at).


Taking this line with YouTube looks bad.


Which is why everything is being done in the Viacom name.


The language they've used in their press release on this is deliberately angry and aggressive. Obviously, Viacom are a huge organisation and want to be taken seriously but their approach is heavy handed and ultimately negative.


Viacom won't care if people take them seriously or not. It is the courts they are worried about.


YouTube already has a huge recognition factor and millions of users. If they want more money maybe they'll get it but I see this move as petty.

$1 billion is hardly petty.


YouTube has removed (and is constantly pressured to remove) any Viacom content.


Ha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vUqhE1aOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI68OUXm1pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84QRLALGm7k
Given the DMCA they have no choice but to take down stuff when asked. However the total lack of effort put into getting rid of the stuff otherwise doesn't look too good.


Viacom should concentrate on their new deal, promote the hell out of it's virtues and quality and moving on.

Moveing on from something that is ongoing isn't really posible

[geni]

Look, I get all that - ie, the 'legally stupid' point, etc. (I presume you mean possibly 'legally imprudent'; 'legally stupid' sounds like a bizarre oxymoron). Any lawyer or law firm acts on direction from its client. The stance they've taken is in conjunction with their own feelings. It's not simply the law taking control here.

Legaly google saying anything other than what they have said at this stage would be a really bad idea. When you are relying on staying within a rather narrow legal area in order to stay safe you don't rock the boat.


I don't believe Youtube fortunes, successor online life is based on Viacom content primarily. It's seems to be surviving despite begin instructed to remove 100,000's of clips of Viacom owned/produced content.

Sure. It will get by even if someone the size of viacom does pull all their content. But if that started to become common google would be in real trouble. The market for youtube blogs is limited.


The BBC deal works that way, not simply because of the broadcasters ethos but because that's how the decided to work with YouTube.

And the reason that descission made some level of sense was the ethos and that they get their funding from UK TV owners rather than ads.


Phillipe Dauman did not sound like a 'real world grown up' in his rhetoric.

http://www.viacom.com/view_release.jhtml?inID=10000040&inReleaseID=227614

Seems grown up to me


The 'emo' thing is American affectation that few outside of the US or a certain age group care about.

However the "how dare they be mean to us" reaction by the "youtube community" does fit the description rather well.


Do you work for Viacom or one of the the many, many companies Viacom owns?

No.

[Smidge]

GENI -

I didn' t say Viacom had to or should agree to the same or similar deal as the BBC one - just that it's possible.

It's always possible to move on - Viacom choose not to.

I didn't say that $1 billion is petty - I said the move is petty.

There are other options that could be pursued regarding developing online content. Viacom wanted to go this way.

I could argue back and forth on each point but having to re-explain myself is becoming odious.

MOVING ON (hopefully) somewhat...

Here's one option a broadcaster has pursued. UK Channel 4 have developed their own online content provider - http://www.channel4.com/4od/.

Other UK channels are looking into this and I'm sure many other international ones will/are too.

It doesn't prevent content from being uploaded to be down loaded, etc elsewhere but that's the beauty and the pain (depending on your POV) of the internet... but Channel 4 do have contol over their own online content, for their own channel and through their website. Smart.

[geni]

I didn' t say Viacom had to or should agree to the same or similar deal as the BBC one - just that it's possible.

Yes technicaly it is posible for viacom to let youtube users use their content for nothing. Makes no sense.


It's always possible to move on - Viacom choose not to.


The copyright infindement is ongoing. You can only move on from events that are over.


I didn't say that $1 billion is petty - I said the move is petty.


Since it costs viacom money to even try to inforce their copyright fideing ways to avoid this cost or seaking compensation is hardly petty.

Given that they could have sued all the uploaders (getty and corbis style) it would appear that for the time being they are playing rather nice


There are other options that could be pursued regarding developing online content. Viacom wanted to go this way.


Viacom is doing that.


Here's one option a broadcaster has pursued. UK Channel 4 have developed their own online content provider - http://www.channel4.com/4od/.


I know CC-by-NC-ND


Other UK channels are looking into this and I'm sure many other international ones will/are too.

Sure but then they are competeing against their own content hosted on youtube. Unless they can do something about youtube


It doesn't prevent content from being uploaded to be down loaded, etc elsewhere but that's the beauty and the pain (depending on your POV) of the internet... but Channel 4 do have contol over their own online content, for their own channel and through their website. Smart.

False. They have control over that website yes but as long as the material continues to appear on youtube they do not have control over their content.

[Smidge]

Do you fully read comments and posts?

(Space left for Geni's obvious answer)

Do you understand, get or use dry humour?

(Space left for a Geni answer that picks up on one element of the above ignoring the overall tenet of the question)

I hope you have a sense of humour cos, if not, by now you'd be unnecessarily angry.

(Space left for Geni to possibly ignore this comment)

Is this matter over? Can we move on? Isn't that a matter of opinion? Why am I asking silly questions?

(Space left for Geni to .... do whatever the hell he wants!)

[robinson]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21379338-663,00.html

I love the title of this thread

Youtube sued for [*Dr Evil voice*] One Beelion dollars

Every time I read it, I add the Dr. Evil voice. It is funny Andy.

[ZirconBlue]

BBC don't make their money from selling adspace and content. Viacom do. Doesn't have much impact on the BBC one way or another how people see their material. If you look at the BBC deal the only stuff they will be makeing money out of will be add on material rather than clips of shows. Such a deal would not be acceptable to Viacom.

NBC was also able to negotiate an agreement with YouTube. (http://news.com.com/NBC+strikes+deal+with+YouTube/2100-1025_3-6088617.html)

[Smidge]

Good point Zircon Blue/Parrot Pirate type person.

This what I've been trying to get across - clearly very badly - is that more programmes makers/broadcasters are not suing YouTube than are and other broadcasters have managed to work with YouTube. On whatever terms.

The guys who make South Park have regularly stated that they don't care if people upload/download SOuth Park; they want the show to be seen. I don't think they have actively encouraged fans or potential fans to do this because of the obvious legal consequences but the South Park creators have mentioned certain sites that they believe to be good places to download SOuth Park.

Comedy Central is one of Viacom's several companies but the South Park guys are not themselves too bothered about that - it seems.

[geni]

Good point Zircon Blue/Parrot Pirate type person.

This what I've been trying to get across - clearly very badly - is that more programmes makers/broadcasters are not suing YouTube than are and other broadcasters have managed to work with YouTube. On whatever terms.


And Viacom tried. In return for a video filtering system that would identify their content they were happy to work with google. Google said they would provide such a system. Google failed to do so.

Well that is one claim. The other one is more interesting

"Moreover, YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on favorable terms. YouTube’s chief executive and cofounder Chad Hurley was quoted in the New York Times on February 3, 2007, as saying that YouTube has agreed to use filtering technology “to identify and possibly remove copyrighted material,” but only after YouTube obtains a license from the copyright owner."

Geraldine Fabrikant & Saul Hansell, Viacom Tells YouTube: Hands Off, N.Y. Times,

Google not looking nearly as saintly now are they?



The guys who make South Park have regularly stated that they don't care if people upload/download SOuth Park; they want the show to be seen.

If that is the case why don't they release the material under a free or semi free license. CC-BY-ND-NC (oh wait you can't post material under that license (or and semi free or free license other than psudo PD ones) to youtube since it would violate their upload agreement) it's good enough for channel 4.



I don't think they have actively encouraged fans or potential fans to do this because of the obvious legal consequences but the South Park creators have mentioned certain sites that they believe to be good places to download SOuth Park.

Nice to have your cake an eat it isn't it? Mr Stone and Mr Parker know that viacom will do the heavy lifting when it comes to inforceing the copyright and they will still get paid.


Comedy Central is one of Viacom's several companies but the South Park guys are not themselves too bothered about that - it seems.

Because in this day and age publicly trying to enforce your copyright is a very bad PR outside of a very narrow set of conditions.

[ZirconBlue]

And Viacom tried. In return for a video filtering system that would identify their content they were happy to work with google. Google said they would provide such a system. Google failed to do so.

Well that is one claim. The other one is more interesting

"Moreover, YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on favorable terms. YouTube’s chief executive and cofounder Chad Hurley was quoted in the New York Times on February 3, 2007, as saying that YouTube has agreed to use filtering technology “to identify and possibly remove copyrighted material,” but only after YouTube obtains a license from the copyright owner."

Geraldine Fabrikant & Saul Hansell, Viacom Tells YouTube: Hands Off, N.Y. Times,

Google not looking nearly as saintly now are they?

Or, perhaps Viacom decided that they could bully YouTube into even more favorable terms than those negotiated with NBC. I don't see why you are automatically taking Viacom's word, here.

[geni]

Or, perhaps Viacom decided that they could bully YouTube into even more favorable terms than those negotiated with NBC.

I doubt they would go to the lengths they have gone to put together alturnatives under those conditions.


I don't see why you are automatically taking Viacom's word, here.

Google haven't denied it.