Showing damages should be interesting. I doubt very seriously that Google would choose a bench trial, so showing actual damages will just confuse the jury. Assuming, of course, that they don't settle. But knowing what an asshole Sumner Redstone is (I own Viacom stock), Viacom won't settle for less than a full admission of fault, which just isn't going to happen.

... all that Viacom need to do is count the number of views of each infringing video (regardless of whether these views are for parts of an entire episode or film), and multiply that number by the average cost of a DVD.

That's the RIAA and MPAA way, isn't it? I am sure it will produce a figure close to what Viacom claim... because EVERY copyright infringer (sorry, CYBERTERRORIST) is a lost customer. And maybe these people are streaming YouTube videos to audiences on oil rigs, in schools, prisons, and other public places...

Surely Google saw this coming? I guess not.

Lots of copyrighted materials on YouTube, but no money anywhere.

Google buys YouTube - HEY, there's money there, let's take it!

So Google removes offending videos, YouTube loses Cool, kids move offshore.

Duhhh.

The way the MPAA does it is like 50k times the number of infringing songs. I personally think that proving damages will be funny because google would only have to get a study saying people who download wouldnt buy if they couldnt or didnt download or people who download are more likely to buy than those who dont. Should this go to a jury trial I would like to see a countersuit by google for racketeering and abuse of monopoly. Viacom doesnt have a monopoly over all movies but they do have over 100 years on the songs they publish which is more than enough in my opinion to be considered a monopoly. Really drug companies get 7 years starting from the day they begin research which would be more fare