Google/Youtube took down the offending files after being informed that were in violation. Also I'm sure it didn't help their cause that in many of the "clear violations" Employees of Viacom were the people uploading the content just to create the violation.
Viacom is trying to convince an appeals court to overturn an earlier ruling in which a federal judge dismissed the $1bn lawsuit the TV behemoth brought against Google's YouTube. In June 2010, the copyright infringement suit was ditched in a landmark decision that wasn't only a big win for Google, but also sent a clear signal …
yes, there were.
There were several instances of one division of Viacom uploading videos, and another division issuing DCMA takedown requests against those videos. See the following page and its links to the court documents: http://www.google.com/press/youtube_viacom_documents.html
They make for humourous reading.
Someone give Viacom a big block of cheese.
yeah the really hard cheese
Can we have the argument that infringing copyright kills babies again?
this kind of money?
What kind of money?
Huge bandwidth and high storage costs and not much advertising, has youtube made any money yet?
If it can be shown that any of the infringing material came from a Viacom source then Viacom should be sued for entrapment; $2Bn should do the job.
A copyright owner posting their own content is not a copyright infringement. Viacom is not complaining about their own postings appearing on the site, but 10,000s of unauthorised postings.
Read the transcripts. Viacom was, through a 3rd party, issuing DCMA takedowns against videos uploaded by Viacom (or other 3rd parties authorized by Viacom): so they were complaining about their own postings (for a given value of 'their own.')
Also, the DCMA doesn't give YouTube/Google the right to ignore a DCMA request issued by Viacom, lodged against a video uploaded by Viacom. If you read the transcripts, you'll find one where an authorized agent of Viacom uploaded a video, which was DMCA'd by Viacom, and the subsequent email exchange between the uploader and YouTube/Google. That one was quite funny to read.
Google's point was: we're trying.
Viacom's point was: you're not trying hard enough.
Google's reply was: why do you issue DMCAs against yourself?
Viacom's reply was: we didn't know it was us.
Google's reply was: You can't tell the difference between an authorized and unauthorized upload? No further questions, your honor.
I would imagine that...
If it was found in court that Viacom had posted content on youtube with the sole objective of creating a law suit or reinforcing their case for copyright infringment then a judge would take a very dim view and Viacom would at least be found in contempt of court.
But then again I have been lead to believe that infringing copyright kills babies, so what would I know?
So where is the IT Angle here? Lawyers without enough proper work to do does not make this an IT Story
Optional (see, darker letters now)
The IT angle is the algorhythms that Google has developed (and possibly YouTube before them) to determine if a video is part (or all) of a copyrighted work. Theoretically, if you rip Starship Troopers (and I don't mean critique) and upload the first 10 minutes, Google's algorhythms will be able to tell that it is indeed a partial copy, and that it matches a video that is protected and shouldn't be uploaded.
One problem is that 'Copyright' means different things to different people, as the vendors seek to fuzzy the definition of "fair dealing." I am sure some people would upload no matter what, but the rules should at least be made more clear.
In other words, keep on trying until you get the response you like. Mmm, sounds like certain EU referendums.
Another roll of the dice?
What's an extra few million in lawyers fees if you can try again for that billion dollar jackpot...
«[F]undamentally flowed» -
a description of Viacom ?...