Google And Viacom Finally Settle The Big YouTube Lawsuit
from the about-time dept
I'm somewhat surprised this took nearly this long, but it appears that Google and Viacom have finally settled their long-running legal fight over whether or not YouTube was liable for copyright infringement on the site. So far, Viacom had been losing pretty badly at nearly every step of the process -- and YouTube is considered so completely legit at this point that the more Viacom fought, not only did it look worse and worse, but at least some of the legal geniuses there must have realized that the court was going to wipe the floor so clean with them that rulings they really didn't like were going to be written and used as precedents for other innovative services.The terms of the settlement are not public, but in this case, it likely doesn't much matter. I'd be surprised if much (or any) money changed hands (Update: Yup, it appears no money changed hands). Both companies spent many, many, many millions of dollars in the lawsuit to date, and it clearly made sense to stop it from going any further (especially from Viacom's standpoint, because it was pretty clear that it was going to lose really badly). While this means there won't be a useful Supreme Court ruling that reinforces the DMCA's safe harbors, the initial victories by Google in the lower courts should have enough precedential value to be useful in many other cases.
In the end, Viacom wasted more than seven years fighting YouTube in this particular case, and not a single court seemed to think particularly highly of its theories. Its closest "victory" in the process still involved the appeals court more or less rejecting every one of Viacom's theories. If I'm a Viacom shareholder (and, thankfully, I'm not), at this point I'm asking why the company spent so many years and so much money trying to sue one of the most popular and useful distribution platforms out there.
In the end, the case is perhaps one of the most perfect examples of how old media reacts badly to new innovations and immediately reaches for the only real tool in its toolbox against disruptive innovation: flailing about angrily in the court system, hoping to kill the innovation. Thankfully, seven years later, this process has finally been put to bed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, innovation, lawsuits, settlement, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's no wonder they lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would require work. Copyright has become about not working. It's the Golden Goose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gee, it would sure be nice if a house builder thought that once they built a house they should be able to receive income from it forever. Oh, wait. Some actually do as they take notice of how eternal copyright works.
You hear copyright owners talk about the evils of limiting copyright to merely life of author plus ninety years. "How are my children going to get income from this?" Etc.
Copyright is all about entitlement and not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next up: Warner Bros.
Then, Universal, Sony...
Sooner or later, the bombardment will eventually end up in favor of the legacy business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What Viacom et all doesn't want almost above all else is a court precedent that supports "making an invalid DMCA has actual penalties" suits *against* them; because if one of the latter occurs and succeeds, they've got to spend more or stop being so flagrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By constantly fighting Google, who can afford to fight back, they are saying that while Google can afford to defend itself look how much money we are willing to pour against this big entity that can defend itself. Imagine how much more willing we will be to spend our money against a defenseless startup and bury them even if they are legally right. The amount of money that they spent on Google is proof to all startups that the legacy players are willing to dish out a lot of money against anything that wishes to compete with them so if you want to compete you better make sure you can defend yourself financially first. Maybe that's the message the legacy players are intending to send. So, in a sense, the legacy players did indirectly win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shareholder Value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom won
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viacom won
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viacom won
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not agree and find it disappointing you don't put the case filing into historical context. The suit was filed in 2007. Youtube had been in operation for 2 years and infringement of Viacom's content was rampant. Reading some of the emails between Walker, Karim, and Hurley, it was obvious they new infringing content was being uploaded. 512c
is supposed to give you safe harbor if you are unaware of infringing content. They were aware. It is not as if Youtube was offering to license the material. The licensing agreement wasn't reached until 2008. Using the reasoning of the Grokster, Youtube was not made primarily for infringement purposes however, a reading of the emails makes it clear Youtube founders knew the popularity of the site, in the beginning, would be in large part from infringing content. Why Viacom didn't drop the suit after the licensing agreement? They wanted money from the site their content helped to build. Viacom wasn't trying to kill off innovation,they were trying to get paid for the use of their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Relating to your comment about them 'knowing that infringing videos were being uploaded', general knowledge of infringing content being uploaded is not enough to strip a site of it's safe harbor protections, the copyright owner has to file DMCA claims for specific works, they can't just say 'There's infringing stuff on your site, it's your job to find it and take it down.'
Until a valid DMCA claim has been filed, and the infringing file(s) named, a site doesn't have to do anything, and they certainly aren't forced to proactively monitor what's uploaded.
This article covers some of Viacoms arguments, and how they were pretty thoroughly demolished by the judge in that case, would probably make for a good read to get some background:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/15061722753/youtube-wins-yet-another-complete- victory-over-viacom-court-mocks-viacoms-ridiculous-legal-theories.shtml
(Just be careful wading through the comments, AJ was in full-on-crazy mode for that one, Blue as well, though that's hardly surprising given the article)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's a hint: to monetize your content, add advertisements to it and wait for the money to pour in. You can actually have the ad revenue from copies diverted to yourself. Viacom could have opened a channel and done exactly that. Instead they appear to have set up a crude honeypot trap and fallen into it themselves.
And as I keep on saying, we NEED to LET GO of the "selling copies" business model because it's never been easier to make copies as it is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't claim Viacom's innocence. Their incredibly lazy execution and inaccurate interpretation of the law was what became apparent throughout out the litigation. However, I am sure there were those at Youtube that knew of specific infringement. Viacom just couldn't prove it. That is what I found so interesting.
"they can't just say 'There's infringing stuff on your site, it's your job to find it and take it down.'
Absolutely. I think that is why the litigation was so important for everyone especially innovators and copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That could very well be, but without that proof, they have no case. Unless they could prove that the people working at youtube were aware of specific infringing files and took no action, then there's nothing on the books they could use against youtube.
Absolutely. I think that is why the litigation was so important for everyone especially innovators and copyright holders.
Not quite sure I get the point you're trying to make here. All the litigation did was reaffirm the fact that general knowledge of infringement isn't enough to strip a site of safe harbor protections, which was already part of the law, so other than wasting millions, or clarifying something already on the books, not much seemed to come out of this string of cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]