Viacom Sues Youtube For Us$1 Billion Dollars - The biigest sue against Google corporation (Youtube owner)

Lyon2

Mar 16 2007, 11:20 AM

News: Viacom sues YouTube for US$1 Billion Dollars
Source: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.n...ryid=single7947

Obviously, youtube earned millions, not to say billions, with the very popular website http://youtube.com but,
everyone knows that a lot of video clips shared in their website servers have not licences to be used legaly,
and that is why everyone also knows youtube owners, which is google corporation now, are breaking the law,
that is the number one fact.

Unauthorised clips of popular TV shows like MTV Unplugged and Sponge Bob Squarepants that have been viewed online more than 1.5 billion times, have no licences from Viacom which is the legal owner if i may say so.

And you all know, a lot of video clips over there have not licences to be shared/viewed by anyone, but youtube does not care
nor does not respect copyrights because lets face it, youtube just cares with earning money, period!

This is the biggest sue, especially because 1 billion dollars is really a lot of money, and if google looses, which is going to lose over Viacom, google will admit that the youtube aquirement by google was the more stupid business of the year of 2006, in my opinion of course.

What do you think? Will Google (youtube owner) lose this sue against Viacom?
Why google did not do anything to stop copyrights infrigement in youtube?
Did viacom sued google because it has much more money then youtube latest owners and so this is a big opportunity?

Just say your thoughts.

matak

Mar 16 2007, 12:07 PM

It is good, i mean it is great that sue is on. Long time has passed since someone sued someone on internet. There was no fun at all (a good band) since Napster was sued, and since MS lost a monopoly sue. I just love when giants are sueing each other for billions of dollars on which none of then have real right. It is just fun to watch.

I think that google is ready for this, and that they probably expected that in the future. Even that much of money isn't gonna make google any less powerful. But that sue is just what google needs, and generaly that is what internet needs when it comes to distributing video content.

I have so much to say when it comes to this subject, that i just don't know where to start. Who owns what is maybe the first question. Eg, if you saw a movie on TV and recorded it with your VCR you could borrow it to your friend if he missed it, without any worries that you are going to be sued. Now a similar thing is happening just in much wider perspective -- the internet. When you look at it in smallest step ever, all that you are doing is shareing something you recorded with your friend. Also it is in small size and quality and if you like it you will probably going to find the original, and rent it or buy it, depends.

Why is the sue legit. It is so beacouse all of that content and video distribution is made on same place. And the owner of that place earns money from "illegal" video. If each one of us, had a website that we show videos on (like before youtube) it wouldn't be possible to sue everybody. So i think that this sue is probably made to declare Law of video clip distribution in future.

electriic ink

Mar 16 2007, 02:51 PM

It's a shame to think that some day these videos might have to be taken down but then again it is unfair on the producers. No more Family Guy

QUOTE(matak)

if you saw a movie on TV and recorded it with your VCR you could borrow it to your friend if he missed it, without any worries that you are going to be sued. Now a similar thing is happening just in much wider perspective -- the internet.

That's not the same thing. You're allowed to record programmes and give that to your friend because as soon as you give it to him, you forfeit the legal right to watch that content and give the right to your friend. Similarly, when he gives it back to your he forfeits his right to watch it. The moment any of you duplicate the recorded material, I believe you break the law. With Youtube, I could be watching that video at the same time as a Chinese man so it's like having multiple copies of the video because the owner still has the original copy so hasn't forfeited his legal right to watch it; I think. Both the owner, Google and I are now in trouble because I watched videos unlawfully and he and Google both gave me the opportunity to watch it.

Viacom are only suing now because there's more of a case. Rather craftily, they've let the problem get so bad that there is not doubt about there being a case because of the quantity of videos on the site. They can also say that Google has had ages to sort the problem out and that this is irresponsible behaviour from a TNC. Viacom knew it wouldn't be sorted out in time because it's such a big job.

I don't mind Viacom suing; I just don't like what will become of it.

possible123

Mar 16 2007, 03:54 PM

I don't like the fact that Google is being sued. I am a big fan of Google.

Viacom is clearly doing this for money. Viacom isn't trying to enforce anything.
The internet is so full of copyrighted content that they might as well give up.
It would take forever to clean up all of the copyrighted content.

Viacom should be thanking Youtube and Google. They are getting free advertising of their content.
That should be good for their business. If Viacom isn't actually doing this for the money and is trying
to get rid of their copyrighted content, I think that they just need to chill off.

It is most likely that Viacom is just trying to get rich off of Google.

friiks

Mar 16 2007, 05:24 PM

QUOTE(matak @ Mar 16 2007, 02:07 PM)

Like Lars ranting about Napster, eh?
I really love Metallica but that disappointed me a lot although it was in 2000 it's kinda yea...
All he said was that he doesn't mind people downloading their music - it's that they can download the album before you can buy it...
I buy their cd's, yea...
but I download music as well...
I mean yeah...and this is kinda off topic yet I wanted to express how I feel

matak

Mar 16 2007, 05:45 PM

QUOTE(electriic ink @ Mar 16 2007, 03:51 PM)

The moment any of you duplicate the recorded material, I believe you break the law. With Youtube, I could be watching that video at the same time as a Chinese man so it's like having multiple copies of the video because the owner still has the original copy so hasn't forfeited his legal right to watch it; I think. Both the owner, Google and I are now in trouble because I watched videos unlawfully and he and Google both gave me the opportunity to watch it.

I don't mind Viacom suing; I just don't like what will become of it.

Yes, that is quite right. But i just don't understand those rich producers minding this. It doesn't affect them in anyway. It is not true that they will earn less money beacouse of video being broadcast on youtube. It is just question of principal i think. And than again i remind of that all of that content is on the same page. And i think that is what you are aiming at too. I kinda like this sue. And i don't even care what will become of it, couse i don't even use youtube, couse i feel it's massive waste of time. And time is precious. Instead of spending all of that time on youtube i will rather read some good articles on PHP or new technologies.

There should be video distributing website, but with qualitiy and educational videos. So people can learn and improve in many ways. Most of tube's videos are just for fun - and just a waste of bandwith. It is time to bring back HTTP to path it should be used for.

is sound funny even to myself talking about this, but well. Money is still the main purpose in everyone lifes, and therefor understanding of life and technology is always looked from that side - and never on the side of how much something can improve peoples lifes. I belive that youtube doesn't improve life a single bit, and therefor should be shut down

EDIT: Just by reading this i figured out that i didn't write anything about quote above. I just wanted to say that i don't understand when someone is breaking the law when it comes to sharing recorded material. I think that the answer should be, that one is breaking the law when he tries to earn money on that recorded material. Does youtube earn money on that material? Or is it earning money on community, which is there for that material?! This is really tricky question - and that's what judges are going to be deciding i think...

adriantc

Mar 18 2007, 04:31 PM

I on the Google side on this one... The internet is all about sharing, bringing people together... YouTube does just that. Internet is all about Wikipedia and YouTube and nobody should have the right to take that. I think Google didn't do a bad deal when buying YouTube, what Google did is called an investment in the future of the Internet. Soon enough everybody will have broadband internet connections and sharing media will be an even larger thing then it is today. Companies like the Viacom or RIAA are on the loosing side because they cannot just pool the plug of the Internet. The Internet is now owned by Viacom or RIAA or, as some suggested, the USA it is owned by the everyone whether they are from the USA, Europe or Asia. And besides it's not like anyone will watch a full movie in the awful resolution of the YouTube. So Google should fight on... I am sure it will eventually win!

itrainmonkeys

Mar 19 2007, 03:42 AM

When are these companises going to realize that Youtube and sites like that help promote the shows and programs that are shown. I watch episodes on the computer and it makes me want to watch the television show and buy dvds. It's like the whole Napster and Limewire copyright thing - the sharing of the content encourages fans to spend money on the artists. I don't get the point of suing youtube for that money. They are just trying to cash in on some success and it's dumb. Why not embrace the service like so many people have. NHL, NBA, CBS, NBC, TNA wrestling......so many different media outlets have been embracing youtube and using it to their advantage. showing clips and previews that gets the people interested. It just makes sense. Stupid Viacom.

Usedragon2009

Mar 19 2007, 04:24 AM

QUOTE(adriantc @ Mar 18 2007, 11:31 AM)

That is one interesting statement, people getting together sharing music but there are always people that wanted to stop people doing the stuff that people are sharing. Just someway that wanted to control how we used the internet these days.

QUOTE(itrainmonkeys @ Mar 18 2007, 10:42 PM)

I feel the same way i think they should allow them to promote the shows or programs. This would be whatever program they were watching or buying their stuff could instancly getting more money. I only see that people that host their video is just one way trying o make money in some ways.

Lyon2

Mar 19 2007, 12:17 PM

It is not that simple, Viacom is the proper legal owner of those shows and, they have the right, the copyrights, and lets face the truth, they are a company that sells products, not the opposite, so they have the right to sue anyone that uses their productions, their products without any licences, just like youtube is doing, using others products to get rich.

I am sure google will loose, it is just a matter of time, i am sure of it.

Internet is a big network which facilitates the spread of illegal content without any security or security measures to prevent it, but we should fight this "fashion" because, for instance, if tomorrow you create a company or a product on the internet, would you like to have your product on youtube? Perhaps, perhaps not, and viacom does not like it and so google should respect it or at least, google should ask for permition or for a particular licence from Viacom.

Google will loose, that is a fact.

Latest Entries

adrianator

Apr 19 2008, 07:28 PM

Didn't Google just make a few billion dollars in just a few hours? I'm sure their pockets can handle it.

hitmanblood

May 12 2007, 06:42 PM

Well it is obvious thing thAT they release that there are many videos on their site which in fact are posted there without permission of their legal owners.

But it is hardly that site administrators know which clips are posted there without licence and which ar enot . Also I would like to point out that there are tools which delete videos from the website in case that it shows original material and by this they cannot be sued and I think that they will lose because youtube had secured themselves from such lawsuites and I think this is making them more popular then advertising.

Also I think that you tube will soon stop its existance and that we will all have to transfer to the google videos which in fact is project by google.

Lyon2

Apr 3 2007, 12:21 PM

humanisfilth, it is not that simple.

First of all and last, Viacom is the proper legal owner of the shows that youtube use to get massive visitors without a proper licence or even an authorization from Viacom, which is the owner of those products.

Even if Viacom is only winning/earning money with youtube, even so, they have the right to stop youtube using their products without even a word, and that is the problem, youtube does not have respect for anyone's products, they just have respect for money, for the profit, and that is why youtube (google corporation) will loose "big time"!

humanisfilth

Mar 28 2007, 04:01 AM

Am I alone in being baffled by this lawsuit? First of all, Intellectual Property and the Daily Show et al??? Uhm...evidently the folks at Viacom haven't even been watching their own programming, because if they HAD, then they'd realize that the Daily Show and all of its related spin-offs are neither Intellectual nor Property. LOL. I kid, but people...c'mon! They're the most vapid (albeit extremely entertaining) faux news shows on the air! Saturday Night Live actually started that whole genre of comedy...and, frankly, they were better at it. But I digress.

If you want a product (and that's all we're talking about here is product) to be successful, especially wildly successful, then you have to MARKET IT! You have to shove it down the throats of 250+ million Americans morning, day and night and create an atmosphere where they think they'll die if they don't watch the next airing. Now...you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising on regular network TV and other cable TV stations to try and lure people in...but, let's face it, the American public is now savvy to 99.99% of advertising gimmicks and keeping their attention for longer than 10 seconds is brutally difficult....until, that is, YOU TUBE came along!!

Now you have this MONSTER merchandising mechanism that costs you NOTHING and lures 10s of millions of people to the "product" each and every day...and ALL FOR FREE! Not a penny has to be doled out. So WHAT, I ask you, WHAT is the problem here!!???

Now, I admit that YouTube sooner or later is going to get smashed fat, dirty and hard by the MPAA because of GROSS violations with respect to the movie/dvd industry. They really need to get that under control and fast. But VIACOM??? Where the hell does Viacom even BEGIN to have a case?? They're contesting You Tube's offerings of broadcast TELEVISION SHOWS for Christ's sake...shows that are RECORDED on Tivo, Comcast digital services, VCRs (yes, people still have VCRs) etc. We have been recording TV shows for later viewing since the beginning of TIME and no one ever said BOO about it. WHY?? Because fewer than 1% of broadcast television ever goes to syndication, which is where easily downloaded content from the internet might be a problem. But we're not talking about that here. We're talking about shows that are extremely time sensitive and NO ONE is going to be interested in a month from now, never mind longer periods of time. I mean, seriously, is anyone interested in seeing the old shows featuring jokes about the President with Clinton was in office? It's not relevant, uninteresting and NOT funny.

This is just totally BS. It seems that Viacom is only interested in opening the door for other lawsuits against YouTube and its clones with regards to more lucrative ventures like movies and other recordings that are highly profitable. They're doing this on principle to set and example and try to put a dent in the internet download fiasco. Sadly, the author of the DMCA recently admitted that all enforcement attempts have failed and the entertainment industry has failed to keep up with the technological challenges now faced by perveyors of real intellectual property...and that's REALLY where they need to be focusing their attention now!!

Even if Viacom wins here, they still fail....the content they're trying to protect can't be protected due to all of the aforementioned avenues for recording it and playing it back...and there are WAY too many clones of You Tube out there right now to make it fiscally responsible to continue suing people to achieve their goals. All they'll accomplish in the end is alienating the very folks they want watching their shows! They should be kissing Google's BUTT and THANKING them for creating one of the most inexpensive marketing tools in the history of recorded media, and finding a way to leverage the technology to remain profitable and allow their show folks to make a living.

pfooey

the_aggie10

Mar 27 2007, 10:43 PM

QUOTE(possible123 @ Mar 16 2007, 10:54 AM)

duh there doing it for money lol
but, i saw something about this on either stephen colbert or daily show.
it was pretty funny, and if googles going to buy out youtube, then they should enforce the laws bestowed upon them.
its google's fault, and they should lose in my opinion.

ADD REPLY / Got an Opinion!	Remove these ADs!	RAPID SEARCH!	Free Web Hosting	[X]
Express your Opinions, Thoughts or Contribute more info. to help others. Ask your Doubts & Queries to get answers, So that "Together We can help others!"	Register FREE for AD-FREE forum, Create your own topics, Ask Questions, track topics, setup subscriptions & notifications and Get a Free Website w/ Email and FTP.		500MB Space No Ads, CPanel, FTP, PHP, MySQL, EMails - 100% FREE