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
    Mark Wells, 17 Feb 2010 @ 9:31pm

    Greed

    In regards to the I would Actually Like to Know who is MAKING an Actual Profit from Posting these "Clips" ?
    Does anyone actually GET paid for doing this? (As In the Folks at Google) Other than say a few cents for the Inline ADVERTS that visitors may Click on while they view their "CLIP". This is the Most Paranoid delusional EGO Inflated RAT TRAP I have ever witnessed in my entire LIFE.
    How is anyone infringing on a COPYRIGHT who is not outright making a profit or damaging the original Copyright "OWNER"?
    Isn't seeing the original work rebroadcast on you tube or replayed on other venues or websites only going to encourage Fan support by allowing us to discover the rich motherlode of inspiration and artistry which are now speeding throughout Cyberspace?

    Hell! if it weren't for "Random" posts and recycled content (such as seen on YOU TUBE and Downloaded from Binary news groups and such ) I would Not have been privy to half the events or recording that I have subsequently attended or purchased.
    Sure , not every one of us has the $$ to order every single recording or movie they happen to "RUN ACROSS" during their cybersurfing expeditions. But HEY! ANSWER me this One: Would anyone who supposedly "pirates" this stuff be Buying it or subscribing to it if they did not know it was there to begin with!? I have the same rant about software. If I do not know that a specific program or operating system is going to suit my purpose, then Why would I buy the damned thing to begin with!?
    What I am supposed to do in this case? GAMBLE with my $$ at the pleasure and WHIM of the Software Companies and or COPYRIGHT WEILDING FAT CAT RECORD EXECS ! who distribute these wares. I hardly think So! Let them dare attack me.

    I will instruct them in proper behavior!

    McCheevers

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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.