Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself

from the sorta-demonstrates-the-problem,-doesn't-it? dept

Copyright maximalists who hate the DMCA's safe harbors often claim that service providers can easily tell what content is infringing and which is not. This is, in fact, a key part of the argument made by Viacom in its lawsuit against Google over YouTube. It claims that YouTube must know that the clips are infringing and should be taken down. There's just one problem: even Viacom doesn't seem to know which clips are infringing and which are not. It turns out that, among the many YouTube clips included in the lawsuit, approximately 100 were uploaded on purpose by Viacom. Yes, you read that right:

Viacom sued Google over clips it claimed were infringing, that Viacom purposely uploaded to YouTube.

That alone should show how ridiculous Viacom's claims are in this lawsuit. There is simply no way for Google to know if clips are uploaded legitimately or not. Oddly, however, the court has now allowed Viacom to withdraw those clips, but lawyers like Eric Goldman are questioning how this isn't a Rule 11 violation for frivolous or improper litigation. But, more importantly, it demonstrates that even Viacom has no idea which clips are infringing and which are authorized. Given that, how can it possibly say that it's reasonable for Google to know?

Filed Under: authorized, copyright, dmca, videos
Companies: google, viacom, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    DB, 31 Dec 2009 @ 7:32am

    63000 - 200 = 62800.

    Disclaimer: I haven't read the Complaint and am only reacting to what's reported here.
    Usually the rants here blame the lawyers. Here it seems justified -- although I'm not sure which lawyers, and maybe, again, it's the client who's really to blame.
    If an outside lawyer signed a Complaint alleged there were 63000 infringing videos and there were only 62800 it's not true. If his/her client provided the list, they may be to blame, but he/she is responsible. And he/she needed to check with the client to make sure what's in the Complaint is true.
    Some bonehead thought they'd make a dramatic splash by alleging 63000 -- maybe the outside lawyer, maybe the inhouse lawyer, maybe an executive at the client. If you're going for the drama, you need to get it right. Better to be right than dramatic.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.