Viacom Sues You Tube for $1 Billion (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

NEW YORK - MTV owner Viacom Inc. sued the popular video-sharing site YouTube and its corporate parent, Google Inc., Tuesday, seeking more than $1 billion in damages on claims of widespread copyright infringement.

Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed nearly 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube and represents the biggest confrontation to date between a major media company and the hugely popular video-sharing site, which Google bought in November for $1.76 billion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/


Eventually, one of these suits is going to catch up to You Tube. They clearly don't take enough steps to preclude copyrighted material from being posted on the site. It's too bad though- it's great to have such a site at one's disposal. It's like Napster before it finally went down. You knew it wasn't legal but it just felt so good...

 

[The SAINTaholic]

Viacom is just jealous that there's someone else on the block who's giving them a run for their money. If you read the first part of the article, it says how Viacom has attempted to "talk" to YouTube about their footages, what kind of talk other than "hey, give us some money" do you think they were talking about? In other words, Viacom just wants something that really doesnt belong to them, yeah sure they have some kind of points of views which make for arguments, but over all they are just ****** off that someone else thought of a way to beat them at their own game.... Hey, without competition we wouldnt have what we do have today. VIACOM, QUIT BEING A STINKIN BABY and SUCK IT UP.

 

[superchuck500]

Viacom is just jealous that there's someone else on the block who's giving them a run for their money. If you read the first part of the article, it says how Viacom has attempted to "talk" to YouTube about their footages, what kind of talk other than "hey, give us some money" do you think they were talking about? In other words, Viacom just wants something that really doesnt belong to them, yeah sure they have some kind of points of views which make for arguments, but over all they are just ****** off that someone else thought of a way to beat them at their own game.... Hey, without competition we wouldnt have what we do have today. VIACOM, QUIT BEING A STINKIN BABY and SUCK IT UP.

With all respect, do you understand how intellectual property works? Viacom actually does have something that belongs to it- the copyright to the shows it produces. It owns them. That's what intellectual property is.

And You Tube allows users to view these shows, and You Tube makes profits from that.

Thus, Viacom's complaint is that You Tube is showing material that Viacom owns without permission. So yes, Viacom is asking to be paid- it wants to be paid for the use of its property.

If you want to question intellectual property laws, that's one thing, but to say that this is "competition" and a way to beat them at their own game is a total misconception.

 

[jpcdolphan]

I love Youtube just as much as anybody but they are flat out in the wrong on their outright refusal to police their site properly for thefts of intellectual property.

No way they win if this case goes to trial. Nor should they.

 

[The SAINTaholic]

Yes I do understand what you are saying, and no Im not nor am I an expert when it comes down to these types of laws. However, YouTube isnt the ones who are adding these clips onto their site, its everyday people such as you and I. In a way it is somewhat similar to Napster, but also completely different. Nearly 100% of Napter's contents were from artists who primarily make their living by selling their songs, where as YouTube's contents are a mix of items posted by both professional as well as amature contents (i.e. home videos etc...). It simply doesnt make sense to allow this suit to go thru. If Viacom is awarded this law suit, it can truly cause a avalanche of all types of lawsuits not only pertaining to YouTube. It could totally change the internet as a whole. As stated, I do understand what you are saying and Viacom's claim of it's property, but you know what, this is America, this is the time and age where technology allows us the capability to do this.
Speaking of technology, did you know that there are filters / scramblers available out there to all broadcasting industries which will not allow one to record their products? Why dont they implement these? The reason is because in general the U.S. has become a breeding place for BS Lawsuits. We are simply lawsuit happy, and the desire to get rich quickly / over night from somone elses thoughts, motives, and incentives needs to be stoped. I hate hearing about a woman who sued McDonalds for 6 milliion dollars from a cup of coffee she spilled in her own lap, Im sick of hearing people sueing fast food places cause they are fat. In my eyes they are all weak and worthless in every sense. This Viacom thing in my eyes is no different, they are just upset that they didnt think of the same thing as someone else did, and they are jealous that the founders of YouTube are so successfull... Ask yourself this question, if YouTube was half the size they are now, do you think you would of heard about Viacom sueing? The answer is simply "no".... They need to focus on how much buisness YouTube is bringing in to Viacom by somewhat advertizing for them. They are soiled cause MTV isnt what it use to be, and comedy central is like the stock market (goes up and down)......

 

[Eeyore]

What I see is that Viacom and companies of the like are too short sighted to recognize that they can work with youtube to make a profit. People watch the clips on youtube because there is no other way. Youtube could still show a tease of a show or video and then offer a link to Viacom or whatever in order for the person to watch more. Youtube would be necessary because people may not know where to search for a particular clip and youtube would be a great storefront. I'm guessing that it is mostly laziness on the part of Viacom.

 

[The SAINTaholic]

Eeyore,

Very well put...... Exactly what I am thinking / trying to say but couldnt exactly find the words....... Thank you.....

 

[SpinalTarp]

I wonder how many unauthorized video clips are on the Viacom owned iFilm. This isn't in defense of YouTube, but Viacom isn't completely innocent.

 

[Optimusaint]

i havent spent much time on youtube since "the juggernaut *****" got removed. copyright laws are too strict when it comes to comedy. if i were a comedian, i would do everything as parody or satire to avoid copyrights, trademarks, and publicity rights.

 

[System Shock]

Yes I do understand what you are saying, and no Im not nor am I an expert when it comes down to these types of laws. However, YouTube isnt the ones who are adding these clips onto their site, its everyday people such as you and I. In a way it is somewhat similar to Napster, but also completely different. Nearly 100% of Napter's contents were from artists who primarily make their living by selling their songs, where as YouTube's contents are a mix of items posted by both professional as well as amature contents (i.e. home videos etc...). It simply doesnt make sense to allow this suit to go thru. If Viacom is awarded this law suit, it can truly cause a avalanche of all types of lawsuits not only pertaining to YouTube. It could totally change the internet as a whole. As stated,
Speaking of technology, did you know that there are filters / scramblers available out there to all broadcasting industries which will not allow one to record their products? Why dont they implement these? The reason is because in general the U.S. has become a breeding place for BS Lawsuits. We are simply lawsuit happy, and the desire to get rich quickly / over night from somone elses thoughts, motives, and incentives needs to be stoped. I hate hearing about a woman who sued McDonalds for 6 milliion dollars from a cup of coffee she spilled in her own lap, Im sick of hearing people sueing fast food places cause they are fat. In my eyes they are all weak and worthless in every sense. This Viacom thing in my eyes is no different, they are just upset that they didnt think of the same thing as someone else did, and they are jealous that the founders of YouTube are so successfull... Ask yourself this question, if YouTube was half the size they are now, do you think you would of heard about Viacom sueing? The answer is simply "no".... They need to focus on how much buisness YouTube is bringing in to Viacom by somewhat advertizing for them. They are soiled cause MTV isnt what it use to be, and comedy central is like the stock market (goes up and down)......

Holy crap...

Intellectual property is as much the property of the people who created it as your house belongs to you.

However, YouTube isnt the ones who are adding these clips onto their site, its everyday people such as you and I.

You let people off the street plant marihuana trees in your backyards, guess who gets arrested?

I do understand what you are saying and Viacom's claim of it's property, but you know what, this is America, this is the time and age where technology allows us the capability to do this.

Technology allows us the capability of doing a lot of things, yet, not because you can do something makes it legal to do so. Yes, this is America, and last time I checked, we aren't communists; one of the cornerstones of our system is private property. You may not think of a movie or a TV show or a song as private property, but again, it is, as private a property as your home or car or wallet is to you.

 

[Shawn]

Holy crap...

Intellectual property is as much the property of the people who created it as your house belongs to you.

You let people off the street plant marihuana trees in your backyards, guess who gets arrested?

Technology allows us the capability of doing a lot of things, yet, not because you can do something makes it legal to do so. Yes, this is America, and last time I checked, we aren't communists; one of the cornerstones of our system is private property. You may not think of a movie or a TV show or a song as private property, but again, it is, as private a property as your home or car or wallet is to you.

I don't completely agree. Intellectual property does not retain the same value as real property. Some of it can become part of the public domain, unlike your wallet or house. Property values in our society are not absolute, never have been, nor should they ever be. If the military decides your property has a great military value, they will take if from you--the greater good to all the citizens outweights your individual property right.

I do agree with the notion that it's private property, and technically You Tube is out of line. On the other hand, a lot of the intellectual property right protection is completely out of hand. With YouTube, it's very different than what the record companies were complaining about. This isn't really a medium for tansferring material ad infinitum. Nor is it like people sampling songs to make their own commercial music, the redistributing of ripped music, or playing unlicensed music in a commerial establishment. Where's the damage? How is anybody making money off of it?

For example, with the NFL, I actually think the posting of many of these clips--which are mostly low-res crappy quality clips anyway--helps provide a free medium of advertisement for their product. The same for a lot of the other clips from TV shows, etc.

I'd like to see these guys prove some actual damages. To me, it's a case where the law was broken, but in most cases the damages are about $1--sort of like the USFL suit against the NFL.

 

[Brock Meaux]

Eeyore got it right. Viacom needs to maybe think outside the box a little on this one. How many people go to You Tube, see a clip of something, and start watching the show that the clip came from every day? I just started watching Frisky Dingo on Cartoon Network because of some clips from You Tube; I've also gotten people interested in watching SNL on a weekly basis because of clips that are up from this season. They have a right to their intellectual property, but if they were smart they'd find a way to cash in, be it advertisements on allowed videos or offering higher-quality clips and episodes for some kind of nominal fee.

 

[System Shock]

I don't completely agree. Intellectual property does not retain the same value as real property. Some of it can become part of the public domain, unlike your wallet or house. Property values in our society are not absolute, never have been, nor should they ever be. If the military decides your property has a great military value, they will take if from you--the greater good to all the citizens outweights your individual property right.

I do agree with the notion that it's private property, and technically You Tube is out of line. On the other hand, a lot of the intellectual property right protection is completely out of hand. With YouTube, it's very different than what the record companies were complaining about. This isn't really a medium for tansferring material ad infinitum. Nor is it like people sampling songs to make their own commercial music, the redistributing of ripped music, or playing unlicensed music in a commerial establishment. Where's the damage? How is anybody making money off of it?

For example, with the NFL, I actually think the posting of many of these clips--which are mostly low-res crappy quality clips anyway--helps provide a free medium of advertisement for their product. The same for a lot of the other clips from TV shows, etc.

I'd like to see these guys prove some actual damages. To me, it's a case where the law was broken, but in most cases the damages are about $1--sort of like the USFL suit against the NFL.

... again, holy crap.

First, intellectual property is real property, as real as your car, or your house, or your watch; even if you meant real estate property, the future value of it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here. Whether something may or may not become public domain in the future has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here.
So someone steals your car, can he be excused because eventually your car will be worth nothing? Intellectual property is very real property.

And how is it different to what record companies are/were complaining about? It don't matter if the material gets downloaded or viewed on your web browser. The bottom line is that millions of people can watch it/hear it without the legal owners of the material getting any benefit out of it.

And let me tell you, Google Inc did not pay 1.6+ billion for nothing. If you go to youtube.com right now, there are 3 corporate logos in its front page, who are paying money to place their corporate feces on the site.

 

[Severum]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592285/


Eventually, one of these suits is going to catch up to You Tube. They clearly don't take enough steps to preclude copyrighted material from being posted on the site. It's too bad though- it's great to have such a site at one's disposal. It's like Napster before it finally went down. You knew it wasn't legal but it just felt so good...

Interpretation of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions would determine it if it saw a court, but they'll probably reach some agreement first. Lawyers for both sides could argue that the DMCA supports their position. If Youtube didn't have ads (like old napster) then it would be completely legal under the current operating procedures.

A court ruling could change the way many sites operate. All sites with ads (even SaintsReport) could be put in the same position as Youtube.

 

[JimEverett]

... again, holy crap.

First, intellectual property is real property, as real as your car, or your house, or your watch; even if you meant real estate property, the future value of it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here. Whether something may or may not become public domain in the future has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here.
So someone steals your car, can he be excused because eventually your car will be worth nothing? Intellectual property is very real property.

And how is it different to what record companies are/were complaining about? It don't matter if the material gets downloaded or viewed on your web browser. The bottom line is that millions of people can watch it/hear it without the legal owners of the material getting any benefit out of it.

And let me tell you, Google Inc did not pay 1.6+ billion for nothing. If you go to youtube.com right now, there are 3 corporate logos in its front page, who are paying money to place their corporate feces on the site.

double holy crap . . .

Intellectual property is not real property, nor is it personal property Its "intellectual" property. As such it is treated differently than real proeprty or personal property.

\And I think that was partly Shawn's point.