ViaCom Finds Smoking YouTube Gun

[Brett_Tabke]

Arstechnica has a fascinating analysis of court documents released yesterday in the Viacom vs Youtube lawsuit:
[arstechnica.com...]

YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site. "Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point. In an e-mail, Chen talked about “concentrat[ing] all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.”

"In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s August 9, 2005 e-mail, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: 'but we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don’t see what will happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down right away. he get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down.'"

"A month later, [YouTube manager Maryrose] Dunton told another senior YouTube employee in an instant message that 'the truth of the matter is probably 75-80 percent of our views come from copyrighted material.' She agreed with the other employee that YouTube has some 'good original content' but 'it’s just such a small percentage.'"

There is so much here to digest. For the first time, it sounds to me like Viacom has a serious chance of winning this suit.

Viacom argues that the startup's strategy was, at its core, a decision to profit from copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether YouTube showed ads on its video pages or not (for years, it did not, apparently concerned about just this issue); to Viacom, the entire business strategy was a way of profiting from infringement.

Which given the emails released, that sounds true. Knowingly profiting from copyrighted materials invalidates the DMCA safe harbor provision. It sounds like they have YouTube cold. Game over.

[outland88]

The likely settlement is Google pays Viacom 750 million with no admission of guilt. Schmidt with Google then parades the settlement as one where Google was not found guilty of anything. Meanwhile Google pummels the Adwords people with sneaky rate increases and drops the payout to even more of the Adsense publishers or just doesn’t pay them for spurts of time. Its likely allowable in their TOS. This keeps the profits up and lends to the argument “see we weathered this and it didn’t affect our stock price or profits whatsoever.” Free speech has won the day tout these greedy little men meanwhile you foot the bill as they abuse the law. That’s why the DOJ should step in and let it be known there will prison time for some in this criminal conspiracy.

[ChanandlerBong]

I think google will win. It almost brings tears to my eyes to say it, but I think they will.

The internet has become an ever more unfair place for the "little guy" and the content provider in the last 5 years - and a warm and cosy retreat for those who steal, scrape and copy.

[J_RaD]

if google wins we can all setup user submited pirate video websites running adsense! get your torrents ready!

[TheMadScientist]

I think google will win. It almost brings tears to my eyes to say it, but I think they will.

They may actually have a fairly good argument for suffering from a case of complete, unbridled, unadulterated ignorance (or stupidity) but I'm not sure if it's an admissible defense for copyright infringement... (LOL)

[zett]

Many people see the scale of Youtube as being an excuse, sorry I don't buy that for a second. If there had been a strong prevention process in place from the start the site would have never gotten to the size it is now simply because the pirate material wouldn't be there.

IMHO, the scale of Youtube could have been an excuse IF they hadn't proactively removed certain material, e.g. violence and adult clips and selected copyright protected stuff. Actively leaving out unlicenced premium material put them in a very difficult situation, because they can not claim that they did not know what was going on on their site. If they can look for and remove nuditiy then they can look for and remove copyright protected clips as well. (A web host or ISP is completely different. They don't know and don't care what's going on, but they do not try to look for and remove certain data and turn a blind eye to other data.)

Personally, I do not believe this will be settled out of court, simply because too much is at stake for Viacom and the entire content producing industry. This is a landmark decision, and both Viacom and Youtube know this. Viacom didn't let it go so far to stop it right before the finishing line.

But hey, whatever the ruling will be - we as webmasters can be happy about it:

If Youtube wins, not only will every bit of digital content be freely available forever (Hurrah - no more payments to iTunes and the like!), but overnight there will be demand for zillions of new UGC sites featuring *cough* premium content. We'll all become UGC site operators! And the content industry will flourish with so much demand for their premium content (wait, something doesn't add up here ;-).

If Viacom wins, however, those webmasters who are able to create and licence unique, valuable content will be much more in demand than now. (Admittedly, those who can slap together a UGC site focusing on pirated content, may have a hard time in that environment.)

[TheMadScientist]

Yeah, this'll be a fun one to watch...

By putting a link in their flagging system to allow users to report 'possibly' or in the user's estimation 'likely' infringement they demonstrated they had the ability to see 'red flags' raised WRT infringement easily. By removing the link from the flagging system they removed the 'red flag' system for infringement which to me seems to be analogous to turning a blind eye.

By not implementing the system they have to automatically flag content with certain meta data as possibly or likely infringing, IMO they again 'turned a blind eye' because they had the ability to look and 'raise a red flag', yet chose not to.

Even more interesting is the videos some think are so beneficial and important YouTube should be allowed to do whatever they feel like are IMO analogous to 'user documentary' or 'personal reporting of current events' and IMO would not have had an issue with 'immediate visibility' if YouTube used either flagging system. IMO They could and would have been made available in real time, but now YouTube has pushed the issue so far they might have to change the entire system and slow down the availability of all videos, even legitimate uploads.

I really don't understand how anyone could be upset except at YouTube for what seems to be gross mismanagement of the situation...

[graeme_p]

Not to offend Demaestro but you have made it clear for many years, in other threads, you are opposed to all copyright law.

Citation needed. As far as I remember his previous threads, he takes exactly the same position on copyright as me (or the US constitution, which puts it very well), that copyright (and patents) are not property, but state granted monopolies that exist to artificially provide incentives an unregulated market would fail to - i.e. they are similar to a combination of a hypothecated tax tax and subsidy, except the beneficiaries collect it themselves.

The other thing that people taking this position tend to argue, is that copyright law needs reform: excessive terms, legal force for DRM, problems connected with applying law that originated for books to software. Lots of people who create content agree with this (from minor ones like me, to major figures like Ursula Le Guin).

If Youtube wins, not only will every bit of digital content be freely available forever

If Youtube wins things will continue as they are.

If Viacom wins

All UGC sites will need HEAVY moderation - but I do not think it will change things for most of us.

My main site (the one that actually makes some money) consists purely of content written by me, based on my industry experience and research using primary sources (papers in academic journals, for example). I have no competition from user generated content, so what good would Viacom winning do me?

[tangor]

We see too many opinions... In reality there are only two opinions and two markets.

On the opinion side: give it to me free, you creator and,
Avast there, you freetard, I can control this x years!

On the market side: give it to me free, you creator and,
Are you out of your freekin' mind, freetard?

Print, radio, and tv have already been down this road. It is a matter of delivery system control and ability to distribute. Gutenberg, Marconi, Eastman. Each technology went through growing pains. All the above found ways to cover the artists/creators (and those that published/distributed their works). This time around the distribution system is bypassed and every opportunistic Tom, Dick and Harry, and the freetards, too, have jumped on the wagon---and that has broken things a bit.

In the old days licenses, fees, and contracts between manufacturing/distributors and creators covered everything. That does not fully exist now. Back then fees and licenses were attached to devices (radio and tv sets, tape, vinyl, cd) and venues such as theaters, pubs, concerts had/have licenses/fees paid to RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, etc. (Pick your country, you have similar there, too!)

We don't have that on the web at the moment. But I see it coming. I see it as a device level fee for the computer, tablet, ipod, cell phone and the isp, and all such fees will be directed to the Consumer...which includes the freetards, too. I see it coming. As a musician, who gets a paltry royalty check from ASCAP monthly for some tunes I recorded back in the daze (sic), this makes perfect sense. That said:

What Google has done with YouTube is offensive to me on many levels. I had to play wack-a-mole with them regarding a recent recording of my band put up on their YT site without permission, which went minor viral which earned the miscreant $35 in revenue until shut down. Google would not apologize or pay me what she earned... but the villain resides in my home town and I collected... over a few beers she bought (with that $35) and some finger wagging.

The web is going to change. Collection of these creator due royalties for view/read is necessary, though it gets really complicated as to who should collect what and why. Does my hobby site with no ads deserve a royalty? No. Does my ecommerce site deserve a royalty? No. Does my site using created video by others need to pay royalty? Perhaps. It is an amazingly complex thing...however, there is no doubt that media companies are going to wack-a-mole...and take out whole swathes of the web if need be, if there is no consideration for their mega-buck intellectual property showing up, without consent, on YouTube or the like. The isps may need to collect a royalty for passage of same. The hardware guys might pay license/fees to show text/media. No one will like it... those listed for sure, but the consumer, that consummate end point of delivery, will not notice the buck fifty three in their expense for any or all of the above. That, times 250m is a chunk of change. It is not there yet but I predict it will get there because it is the only right and logical place to collect those royalties: from those who consume it!

[zett]

But I see it coming. I see it as a device level fee for the computer, tablet, ipod, cell phone and the isp, and all such fees will be directed to the Consumer...which includes the freetards, too. I see it coming.

Sure, getting the money will not be the problem in your scenario.

Splitting up the money will be the big issue. Based upon which mechanism shall the money be split? Pageviews? Time spent on site? Number of registered works? Size of works? How do you measure any of this without opening huge loopholes for scammers?

I still think the current (old) model is probably the best. The creator is (in theory) in charge of how his creation is being used. If you find someone who uses the creation without proper licence, let him bleed money until he turns pale. And apply that rule also to those who support the thief by offering UGC sites and turning a blind eye to what's going on.

[tangor]

zett... agree with all. No change in my prediction. The mechanics of how it gets done will be like watching Congress make law (recently seen) or making sausage. It ain't gonna be pretty.

But there is no doubt, given the info we've seen regarding the YT and G emails, that G KNEW what they were getting into and there's no doubt that G, as owner of YT has continued in the same vein.

I think they need a wack. We'll have to see what the court decides.

[StoutFiles]

We'll have to see what the court decides.

Speaking of court decisions, when is it estimated a decision will be made? Is this something that Google can drag out for a long time? Given the possible ramifications of this case, I'm surprised more tech sites aren't talking about it, and maybe that's because an actual decision is a long time coming.

[Demaestro]

I am not against all copyright law. I just tend to side with the consumer and not the creator.

I disagree with the pay model of content creators that content should be paid for more than once by consumers.

If I buy bike I use the bike when I want, when I buy a movie it seems that I can't use it how I want, in the media device I want.

I have about as much pity for Viacom as most here have for Google. I value what a site like Youtube can do for the planet over what a company like Viacom will do.

I respect copyright law, I want content creators to profit, but not by suing sites like Youtube.

I asked it but it was ignored so I will ask again... why isn't Viacom going after the actual offenders? Why are they ONLY going after Youtube without trying to have offenders prosecuted? The answer is obvious... they don't care about the actual offenders.

If they had gone after offenders along with Youtube I would be more prone to accept they are actually trying to stop this rather than profit from it.

[ChanandlerBong]

they are going after the offender. The MASSIVE offenders in this case are very much YT themselves - they are the facilitators.

you hire a security guard to protect your store. During the night, he breaks the main window and 500 people come and climb through the hole and steal goods. Who are you going to be more mad at? Which is the more realistic, the more practical prosecution - the 500 townspeople who have ferreted away goods all over town or the security guard? It's not a great analogy, but the point remains, YT were the facilitators of these offences and yes, being cynical, they're also the ones with deep pockets in all of this.

this has nothing to do with "one use, one payment". This isn't about users buying a DVD and then being able to make copies of it or put it on their iPod - a totally different and valid issue. Whether you like them as a company or not, Viacom are the legitimate right holders to a vast array of content, content they've paid for. But you have no problems other people coming along and taking it for free.

I would truly appreciate you posting your website's URL so we can put your "hey man, property is theft" ideals to the full test.

[StoutFiles]

I asked it but it was ignored so I will ask again... why isn't Viacom going after the actual offenders? Why are they ONLY going after Youtube without trying to have offenders prosecuted? The answer is obvious... they don't care about the actual offenders.

If Google gave out the identities of people who uploaded infringing content, it would destroy Google's image. People would be weary of ever using a Google product again. Also, different countries have different laws. It'd be pretty hard for Viacom to go after someone from Somalia, for example. Good luck getting that person into court.

Besides, the users aren't making any money, Google is. Viacom wants the money that was made off their content. If you made content and suing someone costs time/money, are you going to sue the person who made money or the person who didn't?

you hire a security guard to protect your store. During the night, he breaks the main window and 500 people come and climb through the hole and steal goods. Who are you going to be more mad at? Which is the more realistic, the more practical prosecution - the 500 townspeople who have ferreted away goods all over town or the security guard?

This example is being nice to Google. A more accurate example would be that the security guard breaks the window then tells the entire town to come take goods for free. While the town's people are there stealing goods, he opens up a small merchandise stand by the window and sells his own products.

[edited by: StoutFiles at 2:07 pm (utc) on Mar 24, 2010]

[buckworks]

disagree with the pay model of content creators that content should be paid for more than once by consumers

For personal use issues many would agree with you on that, myself included.

But let's not mix apples and oranges.

YouTube is NOT about personal use. Something posted on YouTube becomes available to an audience of millions.

[Demaestro]

If Google gave out the identities of people who uploaded infringing content, it would destroy Google's image. People would be weary of ever using a Google product again. Also, different countries have different laws. It'd be pretty hard for Viacom to go after someone from Somalia, for example. Good luck getting that person into court.

No, no, no... The question is why hasn't Viacom gone after the offenders? Not why doesn't Google give up the offenders.

Viacom can contact a district attorney and ask them to subpoena Youtube's records for the IPs of the users who's videos are infringing on the copyright of Viacom, then they subpoena the ISP for the person in control of that IP. Then they file suit. See RIAA for many successful examples of this.

Instead they go after Youtube and not the actual person infringing.

they are going after the offender. The MASSIVE offenders in this case are very much YT themselves - they are the facilitators.

you hire a security guard to protect your store. During the night, he breaks the main window and 500 people come and climb through the hole and steal goods. Who are you going to be more mad at? Which is the more realistic, the more practical prosecution - the 500 townspeople who have ferreted away goods all over town or the security guard? It's not a great analogy, but the point remains, YT were the facilitators of these offences and yes, being cynical, they're also the ones with deep pockets in all of this.

I have a different take on it.

To me... It is more like you have a school across from your business. Students from the school constantly come into your store and steal things, graffiti the walls, litter and so on.

You keep reporting it to the school and the school slaps the students on the wrist... after a little while you sue the school for not controlling it's students. That is all well and good but the question for me is.. why didn't you call the cops and have them deal with the people doing the bad stuff?

When you claim a crime is rampant and you haven't filed 1 police report and you sit on your hands and wait until you feel justified in suing deep pockets.... it leads me to believe you care not about justice but you only care about money.

For personal use issues many would agree with you on that, myself included.

But let's not mix apples and oranges.

YouTube is NOT about personal use. Something posted on YouTube becomes available to an audience of millions.

And I do realize that and I don't think otherwise, I only mentioned it because my position on copyrights was mentioned and I am just explaining where my overall attitude comes from.

I will say after many great debates on here my position on copyright has been swayed a bit in the other direction because of great points made to me by members here. Since I am off topic anyway, I will say I hope you all know that I respect you all and just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't think highly of you.

[StoutFiles]

No, no, no... The question is why hasn't Viacom gone after the offenders? Not why doesn't Google give up the offenders.

Money. Google's making the money, not the offenders. This is obviously all about money. Suing offenders only sends a message, Viacom would likely make little to no money off of regular people.

I'm not saying that users shouldn't be held accountable because they're just as guilty IMO, but when suing costs time/money you go after the big payday if you think you can win.

You keep reporting it to the school and the school slaps the students on the wrist... after a little while you sue the school for not controlling it's students.

Where in your story does the school benefit? Your story needs to include that the students bring the stolen goods to the school, which the school uses to bring more kids to their school, instead of buying their own goods.

I would like to hear your opinion about what should be done with the money that Google makes while showing copyrighted content. Google could easily give each video a key and give the ads on that page the same key...they would know exactly how much money was made off of that video. They probably already do this.

[MatthewHSE]

An even more accurate example would be if you own a store and the local rich guy has keys made that match your locks, which he gives freely and without inquiry to anyone who asks, with full knowledge that 80% intend to steal your goods. Then he sets up a booth outside your door, and as people come back out, he says things like, "Thanks for coming. In case you're interested, here are keys for five related stores around town. Oh, I see you like stereos. Can I sell you some upgraded speakers for that?"

It's clear from these emails that Google knew exactly what was going on. Or, for another example, how would any of us feel toward our next-door neighbor if knew our house being robbed, but looked the other way because the robbers tossed them our Rolex as they ran away?

[TheMadScientist]

Google's making the money, not the offenders.

Making money from the content makes them one of the offenders...

If YouTube merely acted as a storage system and didn't make money off the uploads there would be no issue with YouTube, but they aren't merely about 'storage at the direction of the user' if they were the uploaded material would not get wrapped in a player, would not get 'related' to other videos, would not be organized in the search results, would not be monetized...

Storage at the direction of the user is what happens at my host. If I upload a file it stays as I uploaded in. If I don't wrap it in a player it doesn't play. If I don't organize it in some manner it doesn't get organized. If I don't find a way to direct people to it it doesn't get seen. The fact they not only 'act' on the content upload, they make money from the upload makes them one of the offenders, the largest actually, because they are infringing on the most material.

It doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me personally and can't imagine how a group of webmasters whom all likely have hosting accounts cannot understand the difference between what storage at the direction of the user is and what YouTube does.

[Demaestro]

I'm not saying that users shouldn't be held accountable because they're just as guilty

But the users ARE NOT being held accountable, at all. Viacom hasn't even tried to go after them.

Who uploads the offending material? How is Youtube equally as guilty as those committing the offense?

Lets say for arguments sake Youtube is equally as guilty, why are they the only one being taking to court? If, like you say, there are many more people equally as guilty why aren't they being pursued as well?

I don't agree that Youtube is equally guilty as the people doing that actual crime. Not even close.

Interested in justice? You go after them all. Interested in a new revenue stream, only sue Youtube. I know what Viacom is interested in and it isn't justice. If protecting the IP was the goal then they would go after everyone responsible.

If YouTube merely acted as a storage system and didn't make money off the uploads there would be no issue with YouTube

Not according to what you have said, according to you as soon as they "knew" and did nothing they were guilty. So which is it? They can know and not profit and that is ok? I have seen your posts indicating that admitting to knowing it was there was enough to make them guilty.

I would argue that Youtube hasn't profited, there may be some cash flow associated with those videos being up but I guarantee you that it has cost them more in storage and bandwidth costs to have them taken down and put up over and over again outweighs any cash flow associated with those videos.

There is no way they have made a profit off Viacom's videos. They haven't made any profit from anything for that matter.

[StoutFiles]

But the users ARE NOT being held accountable, at all. Viacom hasn't even tried to go after them.

They attempted back in 2008. [nytimes.com...] People complained about privacy issues, etc. I don't know all the details but I think it would be tough for them to legally go after people.

Lets say for arguments sake Youtube is equally as guilty, why are they the only one being taking to court?

Do you sue the one company that has billions of dollars, or thousands of people for much less than that?

Interested in a new revenue stream, only sue Youtube. I know what Viacom is interested in and it isn't justice. If protecting the IP was the goal then they would go after everyone responsible.

Of course they aren't interested in justice. Viacom is fighting for their share of the pot; however, everyone else who has had their content stolen and placed on YouTube is indirectly getting justice. The end justifies the means sometimes, only a big company like Viacom can pull this off.

I would argue that Youtube hasn't profited, there may be some cash flow associated with those videos being up but I guarantee you that it has cost them more in storage and bandwidth costs to have them taken down and put up over and over again outweighs any cash flow associated with those videos.

They profit in market share, brand recognition, statistic gathering, future plans, etc. Google's looking ahead to a bright, highly profitable YouTube when they've crushed all the competition. Otherwise they'd dump it.

[edited by: StoutFiles at 4:30 pm (utc) on Mar 24, 2010]

[zett]

How is Youtube equally as guilty as those committing the offense?

Because Youtube raked in the money.

I think end consumers uploading a copyright protected clip are potentially protected unless proven that they willingly and massively violated copyright (e.g. by uploading a movie or show in several 10 minute segments).

But Youtube raked in the benefits from allowing unlicenced content on their site. First, their founders got rich; then -after the aquisition- Google aimed at making Youtube profitable by placing ads across the service.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is not necessarily so that Viacom will never go after the uploaders. They probably wait until this case has been decided. I think this is a difficult situation for bloggers who focus on displaying unlicenced Youtube clips next to Adsense ads, which is clearly a commercial use. As I see it, this combination has not yet been fully explored by the plaintiffs. (We as webmasters know all about scrapers, and how Adsense sometimes seems to turn a blind eye to obvious offenders as well. The plaintiffs and their attorney don't.)

But yeah, he who profited from the infringement, shall pay.

[Demaestro]

Do you sue the one company that has billions of dollars, or thousands of people for much less than that?

Well if you are interested in justice you go after them all, if you are only interested in profit and not justice then you go after deep pockets solely.

There is copyright abuse on Youtube. Is Viacom trying to stop it? Or are they trying to profit from it?

There is copyright abuse on Youtube. Is Youtube trying to stop it? Or are they trying to profit?

How is Viacom protecting their copyrights in this case? They aren't. They are doing the same thing as Youtube, trying to profit from copyright infringement, rather than trying to stop it.

Because Youtube raked in the money.

Really? I thought they lost money, not raked it in.

But yeah, he who profited from the infringement, shall pay.

So you are happy to allow the actual people doing this to continue unpunished because they aren't rich? How does that stop this from happening?

If this lawsuit sunk Youtube offenders would be on the next big site the next day doing the same thing and nothing has gotten any better.

If you honestly want this to stop you have to go after the people doing it, crush Youtube and PooTube will pop up in it's place, and the same jerks uploading crap on Youtube will continue their behavior and will go unpunished because the only person that can go after the users, (in this case Viacom) doesn't care to punish them.

A lame solution that does nothing to stop the offenders and to me resembles a patent troll revenue model.

I bet Viacom is thanking those people who uploaded their content to Youtube because it gave them a new revenue stream. I bet they would even pay people to upload their content to strengthen their case, oh wait.. that is exactly what they did.

[zett]

Really? I thought they lost money, not raked it in.

They would have lost more money (probably tremendous amounts) if there had not been any ads or other ways of monetization. Again, the copyright laws do not talk about profit; minimizing losses is also a way of profiting. Attracting visitors to a service that otherwise profits is another way of profiting.

if this lawsuit sunk Youtube they would be on the next big site the next day doing the same thing and nothing is better

Then go after that site (if it profits). At some point in time copyright owners WILL go after uploaders. However, their interest right now is to eliminate the platforms allowing the infringement to happen in the first place (while profiting from it). Just as in the Napster case, back then.

I bet Viacom is thanking those people who uploaded their content to Youtube

I don't think so. I think Viacom would be happy if Youtube would not have acted the way they did since the early days of the service. Their brand name has taken some damage in all this, and this can not be in their interest.

BTW, there are two examples of services that seem to NOT attract lawsuits: iTunes (sparkling clean) and Hulu (sparkling clean). Strange, huh?

[Demaestro]

Then go after that site (if it profits). At some point in time copyright owners WILL go after uploaders. However, their interest right now is to eliminate the platforms allowing the infringement to happen in the first place (while profiting from it). Just as in the Napster case, back then.

Napster? Are you using Napster as a example of this working? Maybe you aren't aware but Napster is dead and file sharing is even more popular.

And where does it stop? It doesn't... Viacom will never go after the offenders because through the actions of the offenders they have a new lawsuit to profit from.

They attempted back in 2008. [nytimes.com...] People complained about privacy issues, etc. I don't know all the details but I think it would be tough for them to legally go after people.

No they didn't, they got a list of people who VIEWED the offending content, not the people who uploaded it. What a strange request. Again speaking to them trying to profit from offending content and not trying to stop it.

BTW, there are two examples of services that seem to NOT attract lawsuits: iTunes (sparkling clean) and Hulu (sparkling clean). Strange, huh?

Not at all strange, neither of those sites host user generated content... they aren't even comparable to the service Youtube provides.

Here is another stupid analogy for you. Imagine a police department decides that it isn't going to arrest drug dealers anymore because that would be too hard, instead of stopping the criminal act they decide it costs too much and start coming up with ways to profit.

So the police go to a mall and observe people selling drugs, but they do nothing to those people they just record all the actions. Then they go to the mall owner and say, there are people selling drugs in your mall. So the mall has security throw out suspected drug dealers based on the info from the cops. But more drug dealers return, and it continues. Finally after some time the police sues the mall for not stopping a crime from taking place on their property.

Now that isn't so bad, perhaps the mall is negligent, perhaps they do need to be sued, but while all this is happening drug dealers doing the actual crime go from mall to mall to mall selling drugs and not being arrested, because that is too much work, there are too many of them, and it is easier to sue the mall then it is to actually stop the offenders.

Only the cops can arrest drug dealers and only Viacom can go after people who violate their copyright. Maybe Youtube does need to be sued, but it stinks to high heaven they are the only ones being held responsible for crimes they didn't commit.

Why have laws if they are ignored when a profit can be made?

[Philosopher]

Let's not forget the RIAA attempted to go after the individuals...how did that turn out? It was a huge black-eye for the RIAA. The RIAA turned out looking like the bad guy and it didn't stop anything as the platforms that allowed it to take place are still available.

I seriously doubt Viacom wants to end up looking like the bad-guy by suing 15 year olds and 80 year old grandmothers when it won't likely have any impact and would actually end up costing them more by going after tons of individuals.

How is Viacom different than Youtube? Simple, they are the legal copyright holders and are entitled to compensation...NOT Youtube.

If Youtube sinks due to this you can bet other sites will quickly change their business model for fear of the exact same outcome.

This is about sending a clear message to the facilitators that their business model of profiting off the back of other's material illegally will not continue.

[buckworks]

neither of those sites host user generated content

There's a terminology problem here. The contentious content is not actually user-generated, it is merely user-submitted.

If the users who were doing the submitting had actually created the content there would be no problem. The problem is that they're submitting other people's content, which they did not create and which they did not get permission to distribute.

users ARE NOT being held accountable, at all. Viacom hasn't even tried to go after them

We have no way to know what Viacom's plans are.

As a purely practical matter they cannot sue everyone all at once who might deserve to be sued; they have to do things in some sort of sequence.

It's totally logical to start with the target that has the most potential to change the situation.

[outland88]

Citation needed. As far as I remember his previous threads, he takes exactly the same position on copyright as me (or the US constitution, which puts it very well), that copyright (and patents) are not property, but state granted monopolies that exist to artificially provide incentives an unregulated market would fail to - i.e. they are similar to a combination of a hypothecated tax tax and subsidy, except the beneficiaries collect it themselves.

In other words you’re espousing the “free-worlder” doctrine. Everybody should foot my bills while I steal and enrich myself at the expense of others.

I have never met a thief who didn’t have some misguided justification for stealing at the expense of others. If you don’t like the laws change them. Again I doubt you will have much success with these ridiculous notions because it amounts to stealing the hard work of another. Until then let me allay your true concerns. I haven’t seen any reports of a crackdown on illegal download or torrent sites. Thieves still control a large portion of the Internet.

[Demaestro]

Let's not forget the RIAA attempted to go after the individuals...how did that turn out?

Quite successfully actually, maybe not in public relations, but I suspect that has more to do with the way they went about it then them suing infringers.

Most RIAA cases are settled out of court where the defendant ends up paying some money and admitting guilt, I bet you those people have stopped.

The ones that go all the way to trial have resulted in huge judgments for the RIAA. So I would say it has been successful for them. I bet you anything those people have stopped because they got slapped with huge fines in court.

it didn't stop anything as the platforms that allowed it to take place are still available

It will never be stopped, just like drug dealers will never be stopped, just like prostitutes will never be stopped.. does that mean suing and trying to profit from these crime is the way to go rather than punishing the offenders since it can't be stopped?

If Youtube gets shut down it won't stop it at all. The Pirate Bay and Napster have been shut down, and file sharing is rampant.

The only people who have stopped are the ones who were fined in court. The rest are laughing.

This is about sending a clear message to the facilitators that their business model of profiting off the back of other's material illegally will not continue.

But it will continue, profit or not there will be pirate sites and suing the site owners isn't a way of stopping it, it is a way off profiting from it.

Your are basically saying the crime can't be stopped so why bother trying, might as well sue people with money to get something out of it, justice be damned.

We have no way to know what Viacom's plans are.


It's totally logical to start with the target that has the most potential to change the situation.

You are right, we don't know if Viacom plans on going after the actual infringers. Perhaps I am being overly skeptical but I really don't think they will.

[edited by: Demaestro at 6:38 pm (utc) on Mar 24, 2010]

[StoutFiles]

Napster? Are you using Napster as a example of this working? Maybe you aren't aware but Napster is dead and file sharing is even more popular.

Because of this "I didn't know there were bad files on my site durrr" protection. If YouTube loses some things will change, because all these huge sites know they have some obvious illegal content.

And where does it stop? It doesn't... Viacom will never go after the offenders because through the actions of the offenders they have a new lawsuit to profit from.

Probably. There will always be sites that have stolen content to sue, and that's what they'll do.

Imagine a police department decides that it isn't going to arrest drug dealers anymore because that would be too hard, instead of stopping the criminal act they decide it costs too much and start coming up with ways to profit.

Just like in real life, the police DON'T go after all the drug dealers, like you said it's too hard ,costs too much, and doesn't stop drug dealing. They go after huge drug shipments. If the drugs aren't there, the dealers have nothing to deal. If YouTube isn't there, the thieves have no medium with which to share content.