Google has responded to Viacom's $1 billion March copyright lawsuit, arguing that it is protected by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and has not infringed on the rights of the media company. Google believes that the lawsuit threatens the viability of its popular YouTube video-sharing Web site as well as others like it. "We think YouTube offers the world's leading platform for entertainment, education and free speech. We're not going to let this lawsuit distract us," said Michael Kwun, managing counsel for litigation at Google. A case management conference is scheduled for July 27 and the judge may set the initial case schedule at that time, Kwun said.
Viacom denied that YouTube qualifies for protection under the DMCA, arguing that the company has prior knowledge of infringing material and is also profiting from pirated works: "It is obvious that YouTube has knowledge of infringing material on their site and they are profiting from it. It is simply not credible that a company whose mission is to organize the world's information claims that it can't find what's on YouTube."
Google offers "best of class tools" for protecting copyright owners, primarily for identifying content on the site that copyright owners have complained about, Kwun said. "We already have in place a digital hash blocking system" that identifies the digital "fingerprint" of content that has been removed for copyright reasons. In addition, YouTube prevents the uploading of any video longer than 10 minutes, a function designed to prevent pirating of full-length copyrighted content.
News source: News.com
Viacom denied that YouTube qualifies for protection under the DMCA, arguing that the company has prior knowledge of infringing material and is also profiting from pirated works: "It is obvious that YouTube has knowledge of infringing material on their site and they are profiting from it. It is simply not credible that a company whose mission is to organize the world's information claims that it can't find what's on YouTube."
Google offers "best of class tools" for protecting copyright owners, primarily for identifying content on the site that copyright owners have complained about, Kwun said. "We already have in place a digital hash blocking system" that identifies the digital "fingerprint" of content that has been removed for copyright reasons. In addition, YouTube prevents the uploading of any video longer than 10 minutes, a function designed to prevent pirating of full-length copyrighted content.
News source: News.com
LOL! Well that's a good point
It has little to do with charging the end-user and a lot more about the advertising dollars. When you group up all of those 3 minute clips & count up the collective times viewed you end up with millions in ad revenue.
This is just TV programs that is free, not the entire channel of programs, I am talking about just couple that was already showed in the air. I think this lawsuit is ridiculous.
This is just TV programs that is free, not the entire channel of programs, I am talking about just couple that was already showed in the air. I think this lawsuit is ridiculous.
But many of those programs don't air for free. You have to pay, one way or another, to get them. You either pay a cable company to get access to the channel or you pay a service like iTunes to download them. Then, for the shows that do transmit on local OTA channels, you still have the issue of commercials and distribution of copyright. If Viacom doesn't defend it's copyright and strictly control who can distribute it, they can lose all rights to defend it in the future.
There's nothing wrong with youtube. I don't see a problem if it's clips of shows but not the whole show.
I think they love to sue for any and everything when the opportunity arises to make a chunk of money and exploit the laws.
So by your logic, Microsoft (as an example) shouldn't have a problem for anyone, including a competitor, to see only bits and pieces of the source code for Microsoft (insert product name), but not the entire source code?
What makes showing a clip of a copyrighted show/program and less illegal than the entire show/program? There some mathematical formula involved or something?
Intellectual property laws are different than physical property laws for various obvious reasons. One them happens to be fair use laws. I'm not sure if these clips fall under fair use provisions, but it sure does smell like Google/YouTube should be able to qualify for the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions.
So by your logic, Microsoft (as an example) shouldn't have a problem for anyone, including a competitor, to see only bits and pieces of the source code for Microsoft (insert product name), but not the entire source code?
What makes showing a clip of a copyrighted show/program and less illegal than the entire show/program? There some mathematical formula involved or something?
I agree, if it's the whole show or just 10mins of it, it doesn't matter. It's the same for music, you can't take out a part of a song and use it just like that, I'm pretty sure they'll sue you if you did. This is why mix tapes have the labels permission to be made a distributed, in many cases for free.
The thing is though, you can post a whole episode if you wanted to, all be it in parts because youtube still has that 10min limit right? Or is that gone now?
Google removed every clip from youtube Viacom asked them to a while, and now Viacom does this.
Viacom is unwilling to adapt their business model to the digital age, so they resort to suing and enriching the lawyers.
Well done Viacom you are some of the worst and most greedy people ever to have lived.
If you can find either of the two you mention in the article you would have a point!
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.