been thinking exactly the same. the news has been all over the world. a few more millions of people now know that there is something like youtube out there. great exposure.
Google will of course. I think most lawyers will notice that youtube claims not responsibility over content uploaded by users. Below are some quotes and my comments. 'massive intentional copyright infringement' - I doubt YouTube intended for users to upload episodes of a program. I think the User intended this. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws." - I had no idea that YouTube was solely based on unlicensed content, heck I even upload videos of myself saying 'LOLz', but I don't think that is unlicensed. 'The $1.65bn acquisition of YouTube by Google last year led many industry insiders to speculate that a slew of lawsuits could follow from angry broadcasters.' - So big business now see that Google has money? So I assume they want a piece. 'The statement accuses Google of failing to make positive steps to redress the situation.' - Funny that, All the copyrighted stuff I try to watch on YouTube is always removed within a few days. I think that is quite a good way to go about work, unless you pre-moderate it (Which in Google terms, takes several months). "Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop." - True, I recall a case where a website got annoyed at Google because they linked to there website. I think that the users of YouTube and Google are killing there favourite sites by uploading this content. I think Google could pre-moderate content (Say, the more legal stuff you submit the quick it is passed the system) or maybe a user reward system for reporting illegal content. Another cool thing they can do (And I'm sure they can) is log where hits come from and if there is a questionable site...block all hits from coming from it and maybe ban it from many searches.
Google is not a god that would never lose ... certainly true. Nonetheless, the Google stock will further decrease: $443.03 -11.72 (-2.58%) now.
I saw this news running below the Bloomburg ticker this morning, it will be interesting to see how things play out.
just because youtube doesnt take liability to what "other people" do with its services, doesnt mean its exempt from the law. To facilitate in copyright infrigement is just as bad as actually uploading it. Everybody knows theres copyrighted material on youtube, it will be hard to prove that youtube did not benifit in growth/turnover by having copyrighted material on its site. Pierce
How much does google pay for its lawyers? The internet is growing at a very fast speed copyright material is all over the place and is pretty much impossible to stop. I think they should just make new laws that let users view for there personal use as long as they dont make money off of it and laws that let video sites like youtube have these kind of clips as long as youtube and other sites dont make money by ex. asking people to pay to watch a clip (unless they have permission from the creator)
geeee..... do you guys in the US always Sue each other ? It rarely happens here in my country Malaysia
That's because there's hardly any businesses in Malaysia. Sorry, I couldn't resist; take it good-naturedly, will ya.
Read about this in the paper today, will be a big hit for google if they loose the case, lots of people will suddenly have copyrighted material on youtube!
Yeah, they have thoes laws, its called licencing, talks between youtube and viacom broke down. And now viacom sees this as the only alternative route. Pierce
Whether Google is protected by the DMCA is irrelevant. The intrinsic principle that Viacom will be required to prove is the alleged INTENT of Google having violated its copyrighted material by not removing it. Theoretically, it can swing either way. Intent - by default - is very difficult to prove in court. And yet, if Viacom has copiously documented each of its requests to remove content from YouTube on an item-by-item basis - and can prove that the content was NOT removed in a reasonable or timely manner, they have a case. It's damned naive (and immature) of people to think that a billion dollar lawsuit is inconsequential to Google. Even if Viacom settles, every content owner in the world will be crawling out of the walls to get a piece of the settlement precedent. A billion here, a billion there - it all adds up. It never seems to go as far as you think it should these days ;-) Google has yet to meaningfully monetize its YouTube content. And if there is ANY dark cloud perpetually hanging over its business practices, Google will have an exceedingly difficult time justifying how the $1.6 billion acquisition of a video portal (whose first legitimate upload was a cat flushing a toilet) ever made viable business sense.