Viacom Copyright Suit Against YouTube Called Threat to Online Media

May 28, 2008

  • May 28, 2008 at 8:05 am
    Greg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    OK, let’s say I have a house and I open my house to anyone and I post rules that say they can use my house as long as they don’t break the rules. Well, people start breaking the rules and who should the neighbors complain to? I am ultimately responsible for responding to my neighbors. If the people in my house commit a crime, they will be responsible for that crime. I can’t simply keep kicking out the bad people and allowing the next bad guy to harass my neighbors, then tell my neighbors to let me know if it happens again (over and over again). I, and Google must be ultimately responsible for this house and what is happening in it.

  • May 28, 2008 at 8:59 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Greg, that’s a fair analogy but unfortunately does not adequately cover the situation here. To maintain their own legal protections YouTube is limited in what they can do regarding filtering content. Responding to complaints in a timely manner is the best way for them to maintain their protections as a service provider (as opposed to a content provider). If they took a more active role in filtering the content on the site they risk becoming authors of the content and liable for any action arising from that content.

    It’s not pretty, but Viacom must police their own copyrights. YouTube shouldn’t have to do their work for them.

  • May 28, 2008 at 12:27 pm
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    But weren’t those works created with the intent of being viewed by the public?

    Yes yes yes, I know Viacom is also in business to make money and if these things are hosted on YouTube then that *might* mean lost ad revenue. Then again, South Park is originally aired full of ads and it is now in syndication in several markets, meaning it’s still making a buck or two, so what is Viacom crying about?

    Will Viacom have to prove that the material being viewed on YouTube is doing financial damage? How would that be determined?

    Why not just ask YouTube to take down the offending videos? I hear they are very cooperative about doing that when notified of an “illegal” posting.

    Maybe I would be having a fit if I were in Viacom’s situation. But I tend to think there comes a point when you’ve got so much money, you really don’t have a reason to complain.

  • May 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I honestly don’t get how youtube.com makes money….to me, it’s just a place i go to post a video for free….so how does the owner of youtube make any revenue off of that…so therefore, if i post a video that happens to contain a clip from a sponge bob cartoon and I’m not making money off it how is that breaking any law? if you read that FBI warning that the beginning of any DVD before a movie starts (and even when it was still VHS) the only way you were breaking the law was if you were charging people to watch the video with you. no one is charging you to visit youtube….youtube is a free site….so how can they be infringing anyone’s right? does that make sense?

  • May 28, 2008 at 1:50 am
    Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I may be wrong on this one but from what I understand about the internet, people make most of their money from ads. Like you see on here. I also heard that youtube, until it was bought by google, did not make any money.
    As far as Viacom goes, they are just looking for a way to dip their fingers into youtube to make more money. If Google and others (mind you there are many other sites such as youtube and some have been shut down, but others still keep going on) dont have it their way, we all will have to start paying for little dumb shows.

  • May 28, 2008 at 2:08 am
    Compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I didn’t realize that there were 1.5 billion stupid people watching youtube.

  • May 28, 2008 at 2:16 am
    Greg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The content is the property of Viacom. It is their right to do with it as they please. If they choose not to have it shown on YouTube, then that is their decision. I respect their right to their property, as I respect all of our rights to our own property. In my opinion, Google/YouTube needs to respect that right as well.

  • May 28, 2008 at 2:56 am
    Nebraskan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Then what’s the difference between Youtube and Blockbuster? blockbuster is making money off of renting out Viacom’s precious cargo…. Youtube is just showing it for free…. shouldn’t viacom be suing blockbuster instead?

  • May 28, 2008 at 3:05 am
    Matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Greg, you are confusing a copyright with tangible property. Violating a copyright is not the same thing as stealing. This is absolutely NOT an issue of “simple property rights.” YouTube/Google do NOT post videos; they provide a service only and they do not provide content. The content is provided by the user.

    Viacom wants to place this blame on YouTube, since obviously YT (a party who is not legally liable) has MUCH *deeper pockets* than the actual perpetrators of copyright violations, i.e. the individual YT users.

    Placing liability with ISPs or web hosting entities would basically require web hosting entities to become private police forces serving at the whim of copyright owners.

    If Viacom finds someone inappropriately sharing an episode of The Daily Show (doesn’t seem to hurt it’s ratings, does it?), they could hold that person accountable, not the hosting entity.

    It’s like suing Ford because too many criminals are using Fords as getaway cars.

  • May 28, 2008 at 3:41 am
    The Benevolent One says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ok, so say I have a photographic memory and re-tell “stories” about the shows I watch. I am such a good story teller and can change my voice so well that people really feel they are watching the show, cause I provide beer. Viacom finds out, should I worry for having a memory of the show. What if I charged admission and for the beer? Just wanted to take this to the silly extreme.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*