MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. in federal court for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages.
Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site.
The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down.
View: MSNBC News
Viacom claims that the more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon, have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site.
The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube. Last month Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips after several months of talks between the companies broke down.
View: MSNBC News
I'm going to bring down your youtube website with my "laser" in the project code named the alan parsons project.
I'm going to bring down your youtube website with my "laser" in the project code named the alan parsons project.
Yeah bring on the "laser"
hey now thats unauthroized use of Dr. Evil, now the MPAA will sue you for $1billion also
LOL....! Yeah... i'd better be careful....
They could try to get me with Preparation H..... the last of preparations and most lethal of ALL! (And they think it feels good on the whole...)
Last edited by Mr.ed on 13 Mar 2007 - 20:10
Seriously though, they should have a special court and law system so that all these corporations can bitch at each other as much as they want, sue the crap out of each other.... and the rest of us never have to hear about it. Viacom has MADE money from youtube, I can't imagine where they will have lost a single dime.
There should be a way to define this as a "stupid sueing" case which can be rushed through and called "a waste of everyone's time" in a matter of hours.
PS: Very well done to previous YouTube owners! Got out just in time! lol
Time was never an issue. The only reason they weren't sued is because they didn't have any money to take from them!
Time was never an issue. The only reason they weren't sued is because they didn't have any money to take from them!
Thats true!! The flood gates were opened as soon as money was up for grabs.
They knew what they were getting and how much copyright infringing material there was on YouTube.
This is coming as no surprise to them. Even your average geek knew this, and most likely the lawyers at Google. :-p
Google simply has to be expecting they'll win this, but I'm not so sure...
A Judge in Canada disagrees with your statement. In fact, P2P sharing is (at the time) legal in Canada. It's been determined that it's the same as a library. A library hold thousands of copyrighted materials. Photocopying these materials is permitted, and thus so is P2P sharing in Canada.
Funny how as soon as a big name like Google is involved all of a sudden YouTube is attacked. It's not YouTube they are really after, they want to squash Google. Is Microsoft behind this... Hmmm....
Die in a fire. Clearly the current IP model doesn't work in today's environment. I have an idea, instead of shutting down what has become the essence of buzzword "web 2.0" why don't you develop a system that controls or defines copyrighted material. Oh wait...you can't. Viacom and all the other dinosaurs would be better off embracing youtube and recognizing that this is free marketing.
Ask yourself what's next? Are we going to start holding Xerox responsible for people photocopying copyrighted magazine articles?
I thought they would be happy with all the free advertising from the people who post video clips from their shows.
what a nut case group they are. lol
If you are British, on the other hand, a billion may be 1,000,000,000,000 (a million million), following the older convention.
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq...utwords/billion
As for the quality of their service, no argument, since Google took over Youtube has sucked (mostly because much copyrighted material has been pulled).
What they don't realize, is that if people have to go to some crappy tv site just view clips of a show they probobly will just give up. They will do it if they can go to one site and do a simple search and have all the video clips from everything in one place. Viacom could be embracing this, not sueing over it.
What they don't realize, is that if people have to go to some crappy tv site just view clips of a show they probobly will just give up. They will do it if they can go to one site and do a simple search and have all the video clips from everything in one place. Viacom could be embracing this, not sueing over it.
What they don't realize, is that if people have to go to some crappy tv site just view clips of a show they probobly will just give up. They will do it if they can go to one site and do a simple search and have all the video clips from everything in one place. Viacom could be embracing this, not sueing over it.
In most cases, exposure to a show is so hard, it would be darn near impossible to get people to watch a show.
For example, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are 2x as popular BECAUSE they were on YouTube. Plus, I actually watch the show on TV now because I don't feel like waiting!
Now perhaps, Viacom should instead stop suing because a widespead backlash is worse. Remember, if you take away what the people want, they will never forget it. (Sony vs. Lik-Sang)
Viacom could have just sent DMCA notices to Google, if Google didn't take them down, they they could have sued.
And I can't see Google ignoring a DMCA request (considering they do it quite often with their search results)
Edit: It's DMCA not DCMA, silly me.
Big Bucks company running big bucks website, legal action and huge demands for money.
The money this company makes comes from those that pay subscriptions that make the programmes for the company to profit, so will the people that subscribe get a wind fall?
I doubt it.
This is greed motivated thats all.
Welcome to the new media age, old media dinosaur. If you don't learn to adapt, Comet Internet will render your kind extinct.
Google
WOW!!! Have you ever been brainwashed by the MPAA and the RIAA!! Just because a technology *could* be used to violate IP rights, doesn't make it "wrong" or illegal. If that was the case, copy machines should be considered illegal and Xerox be held accountable because they know that people are using their machines to photocopy copywrited works and they haven't done enough to protect IP rights of others. The Supreme Court upheld that this view is w/o merit in the Sony Betamax case.
- the logo is still there (proper reference)
- YouTube isn't reselling them and there's no direct money gain, these videos are free to watch for anyone, just like there were on TV.
It's quite different from buying/renting DVD and then uploading a scene from it which is a copyrighted material.
Last edited by Zhivago on 13 Mar 2007 - 22:17
Get Laid Viacom.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.