Viacom sues GooTube for a cool bil
posted at 10:36 am on March 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Remember, for months they were trying to reach a licensing deal for Viacom’s content, which includes Stewart, Colbert, South Park and other YT staples. Then Viacom balked, told them to pull 100,000 videos, and struck a deal with Joost instead.
Now they want to do a little damage.
The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York contends that nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s entertainment programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times…
In a statement, Viacom blasted what it deemed YouTube’s “clearly illegal” business model, riding on advertising sales and traffic tied to “unlicensed content.” The media giant accused YouTube of building “a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’ creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google.”
“In fact, YouTube’s strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden–and high cost–of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement,” Viacom said in a statement.
It’s the boldfaced part that’s key, I think. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act protects service providers, but only if they meet the requirements of the safe harbor. Presumably the case will turn on whether YT’s failure to implement copyright-detection software on its site runs afoul of those requirements, especially the one about accommodating “standard technical measures” to ID copyrighted works.
Viacom initially was going to partner with some other media conglomerates to form an alternative to YouTube, but they pulled out of that late last year. Since then, they’ve done something very smart — they’ve created their own embeddable clips, one of which was featured on this very site just last week. I’ve wondered for months why the cable news networks haven’t done that with their news shows. Put your best clips online as soon as they air, in embeddable format, with a 10-second ad right up front. We’ll post ‘em; they’d make my job a hell of a lot easier, quite frankly. The downsides of doing it that way instead of letting consumers upload them are (a) we’d probably have to wait several hours until the shows had aired on the west coast before the network made them available, and (b) the clips wouldn’t be edited to emphasize the part we want our readers to see. It’d be easy enough, I guess, to work around that with time cues, but ideally, eventually, an additional widget would be built in to the embeddable player that would let you “edit” inside the window to show only the segment you wanted to show. Once that happens — “editable” clips, embeddable viewers, made available instantly after a show airs — then YouTube is out of business. Except as a repository for Truther videos and the continuing adventures of lonelygirl15.
Exit question: How much will Viacom settle for?
Update: Commenter JayHaw Phrenzie thinks GooTube’s got no choice but to go to the mattresses. A settlement will have everyone lining up at the trough. Maybe — or maybe it’ll just give media companies vastly more favorable terms on which to negotiate licensing deals with YouTube.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Goo Tube will have to fight this to the bitter end. If they hand a big settlement to Viacom the dominos will start falling from other content providers. You Tube has way too much exposure, they can’t afford to establish a precedent.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 13, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Also, Please give me a “k”, right after the “w”. Or turn on editing for 5 minutes.
Thanks.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 13, 2007 at 10:44 AM
If their case is strong not a dollar less than a $750 million.
If this is just a broadside, and I doubt it is, they settle quick. I think more than anything, they are looking to establish precedent regarding what constitutes a safe harbor. If YouTube hasn’t succeeded in creating a safe harbor, then what would constiture one.
Viacom’s system is logical. And I think their suit is as well. No one could possibly review everything posted at YouTube to prevent an illegal posting, therefore there can be no safe harbor. I think this suit is to attack the heretofore invincible Google.
Ennuipundit on March 13, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I want editing on too for a sec, por favor.
Tru2my2 on March 13, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Just make another account. It’s not a big deal to do.
wearyman on March 13, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Without copyright infringement, youtube couldn’t and wouldn’t exist. Who goes to youtube to see some fat guy singing a back street boy’s song? We go for family guy clips, simpsons clips, etc.
lorien1973 on March 13, 2007 at 10:55 AM
i guess this vid will be coming down soon.
[sigh]
jummy on March 13, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I’ve been able to find basicly 110% of whatever i went there looking for each time. i hope at least the news agencies aren’t as strident.
jummy on March 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM
While we’re on the subject, I have a hypothetical question. Suppose I have a friend who uses a video capture device to save a TV documentary to his hard drive. He then edits the video and uses part of it in his own documentary, which he posts to his video blog. Is this a criminal act? What is his liability?
RedWinged Blackbird on March 13, 2007 at 11:21 AM
It has merit and they are in trouble IMHO. They hoped the Google clout would shield them (like ebay’s clout shielded Paypal) but alas, the entertainment business is cutthroat.
It wasn’t hard to see this coming which is why Google’s purchase price blew me away given the potential liabilities.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
YouTube is going to have a really difficult time feigning ignorance under the safe harbor provision. It strains credibility to believe that they didn’t know there was copyrighted material posted there.
It will definitely be one of those two. They are not going to walk away from this thing unscathed.
thirteen28 on March 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
wow, viacom sucks.
triple on March 13, 2007 at 12:26 PM
It’s not criminal, its civil. But yea, he could get sued.
triple on March 13, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Gee, didn’t see THAT one coming!
/sarc
P.S.: “Ka-CHING!”
mojo on March 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM
triple,
Fair Use doctrine would be operative in that scenario.
birkel on March 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Can you (or anyone) enlighten me on that? The two documentaries are unrelated in subject matter. The first is a nature documentary. My friend used a portion on natural symbiosis (ants and caterpillars) to illustrate a point about Islamization.
RedWinged Blackbird on March 13, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Maybe I’m being pessimistic, but I don’t think the media sources would like this. Because the first thing everyone would do is remove the 10 second commercial.
taznar on March 13, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I don’t see how youtube can lose this one. This same type of lawsuit was already decided several times by the USSC. First, in the Betamax case, we have the USSC saying that we can’t just ban technology that has legitimate uses because it can also be used to infringe. Youtube has a plethora of legitimate uses. Then, in the more recent Grokster case, which was a terrible case, the USSC went with an ‘intent’ test, so I suppose youtube would be in hot water if they have internal memos going on about how they plan to make money off of infringement, etc or whatever. I doubt youtube would be that stupid.
So what are we left with? 17 USC 512. The copyright holders can send youtube notices, identify the exact videos that are infringing, and youtube has to check those videos and, if they are, take them down. If anything, I think these notices are probably defective, and youtube is going above and beyond the requirements of 512 in proactively sweeping the site for content based on search words, which is why you will see ALL south park clips from the new episode wiped out at a given time. If youtube was doing the minimum under 512, the time delay in the notices being sent and complied with would ensure that infringing videos were always up.
So all this could backfire. This could piss youtube off into saying “Look, we have done your dirty work up till now, but since you wanna fight us, we are going to reject all your improper notices, and take a ‘reasonable’ time complying with the proper ones, so we arent going to be doing your dirty work for you any more.” The end result will be that users will be able to load up infringing clips far faster than youtube will take them down, and the copyright holders will be forced to try to sue individual uploaders.
kaltes on March 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM
What do you think HOT AIR does?? LOL. Allahpundit is saving video to his hard drive all the time then editing it and posting it up here.
Of course it is not criminal. It is probably fair use, but it depends. Fair use is not black and white. Generally, the less material you use, the more commentary/analysis you provide, etc the better off you are. Hot Air and AP err on the side of caution. They could go a good bit further and still be ok under the law.
kaltes on March 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM
I’ve done a little research at copyright.gov. I think my friend is in good shape on two counts: (1) It’s a non-profit, educational use, and (2) The use has no effect on the market for or value of the original material. He’ll be glad to hear this.
RedWinged Blackbird on March 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I believe that YouTube is skating very close to the edge of violating the “safe harbor” part of copyright law.
I say this because YouTube DOES review material and remove what it considers to be “objectionable” as we know based upon its own internal criteria. One of the concepts of “safe harbor” is to protect providers who are unaware that contributors are uploading copyrighted material. By reviewing the contents of their archives for whatever reasons, I think they have damaged if not eliminated any claim to safe harbor.
If YouTube’s owners (Google) are reviewing the contents of their archived, then I do not see how they can claim to be unaware that copyrighted material owned by Viacom are being uploaded by 3rd parties. And given the fact that they do remove materials based upon(apparent) political content, it is prima fascia proof that they ARE aware of the content of their archives.
If they rely upon safe harbor as a defense, I would not be surprised to see a court award that $1 billion to Viacom, or a comparable amount based upon the number of violations that Viacom can substantiate.
georgej on March 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM
One of Two outcomes will ummm come out.
A. “Exit question: How much will Viacom settle for?” For a stake in the company.
B. It will backfire hard on Viacom and they will lose a lot of rights.
Just like with the whole MP3 sharing thing . . no one has been able to stand up to them yet. Google has a lot to lose on their side, not just with YT but with their linking to images and everything else. It’ll get bloody.
- The Cat
P.S. Oh I see, kinda like what kaltes on March 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM said hehe
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM
ok. that’s just bogus.
A company that created the content in the first place can’t lose rights to it … period. That is of course, unless they SELL those rights, or trade them off.
Viacom and other companies like them could easily legally obliterate youtube in this case, and if they line up there won’t be much of youtube left to parcel out for the buzzards.
Easier negotiations?
yeah. I think that’s probably where this is going. That’s the only way youtube is going to survive. If they really try to fight this down to the wire
They’re toast.
I’m ok with that though.
:-)
One Angry Christian on March 13, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Tell that to my VCR and DVD-RW :P
- The Cat
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM
P.S. oh, and MP3 player
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I need to hit the submit a little slower. ‘Rights’ was an incorrect term to use there. I should have said ‘Control’ over their matterial, which sometimes can be confused.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Until they let me DL from:
Mininova
Pirate Bay
…They can pay up.
Tim Burton on March 14, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Comment pages: