Comments on: Viacom sues YouTube for $1 billion http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:44:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: A Look Back At A Very Google 2007 - GigaOM http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-798331 A Look Back At A Very Google 2007 - GigaOM Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:47:59 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-798331 <p>[...] March 2007: Viacom sues Google for $1 Billion. [...]</p> [...] March 2007: Viacom sues Google for $1 Billion. [...]

]]> By: » Viacom vs. Google’s YouTube: Fuggedaboutit? | Digital Markets | ZDNet.com http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92643 » Viacom vs. Google’s YouTube: Fuggedaboutit? | Digital Markets | ZDNet.com Tue, 22 May 2007 22:36:38 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92643 <p>[...] or not, Malik misses the Google YouTube mark once again, $1 billion mark this time. Malik, succinctly on the $1 billion Viacom copyright infringement lawsuit: “kooky” [...]</p> [...] or not, Malik misses the Google YouTube mark once again, $1 billion mark this time. Malik, succinctly on the $1 billion Viacom copyright infringement lawsuit: “kooky” [...]

]]> By: David Mullings http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92641 David Mullings Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:34:01 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92641 <p>As someone who started and runs their own video streaming website, AND had copyrighted content end up on YouTube, I agree with the consensus that YT is profiting from FAILING to police their own website.</p> <p>It is not merely 30 second clips, it is entire shows and segments, and Viacom is merely the first to sue, there will be more because it really does take away from these traditional media companies being able to monetize that content video digital video.</p> <p>You can't illegally punish a company for being a digital dinosaur. Too many video websites are too happy to allow COPYRIGHTED content to show up on their sites - because they KNOW it drives traffic and then they can sell and become millionaires - bad precedents have been set.</p> <p>Lastly, revenue sharing? YT made all of what, $15 million last year by most estimates? And the attitude of "well if you don't license the content to us we won't prevent it from showing up" wreaks of Microsoft-stle bullying</p> As someone who started and runs their own video streaming website, AND had copyrighted content end up on YouTube, I agree with the consensus that YT is profiting from FAILING to police their own website.

It is not merely 30 second clips, it is entire shows and segments, and Viacom is merely the first to sue, there will be more because it really does take away from these traditional media companies being able to monetize that content video digital video.

You can’t illegally punish a company for being a digital dinosaur. Too many video websites are too happy to allow COPYRIGHTED content to show up on their sites - because they KNOW it drives traffic and then they can sell and become millionaires - bad precedents have been set.

Lastly, revenue sharing? YT made all of what, $15 million last year by most estimates? And the attitude of “well if you don’t license the content to us we won’t prevent it from showing up” wreaks of Microsoft-stle bullying

]]> By: frankie teo http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92640 frankie teo Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:59:47 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92640 <p>this will be very funny if they go to trial and judgement turns up just $1 to viacom and YT gets to send a list offending ip address. my hope is they settle this with some ad rev share and let YT grow towards a nicer model forward. all this legal lawsuit is certainly not constructive for bussiness.</p> this will be very funny if they go to trial and judgement turns up just $1 to viacom and YT gets to send a list offending ip address.
my hope is they settle this with some ad rev share and let YT grow towards a nicer model forward. all this legal lawsuit is certainly not constructive for bussiness.

]]> By: Rick Hanley http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92642 Rick Hanley Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:11:12 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92642 <p>The question is if you give Gubyuby an inch will they take a foot. Does anyone have a mental deficit that blocks them from knowing that Gubyuby is just another corporation that wants to win?</p> <p>This is the time when precedents are set. The guys who produce and own the content do not need to kiss Google's ass at this point and they are going to make sure that never happens. That would be like letting TV manufacturers have any real power over studios and broadcasters, no matter how slight. Ain't going to happen. But Google clearly will attempt it.</p> The question is if you give Gubyuby an inch will they take a foot. Does anyone have a mental deficit that blocks them from knowing that Gubyuby is just another corporation that wants to win?

This is the time when precedents are set. The guys who produce and own the content do not need to kiss Google’s ass at this point and they are going to make sure that never happens. That would be like letting TV manufacturers have any real power over studios and broadcasters, no matter how slight. Ain’t going to happen. But Google clearly will attempt it.

]]> By: Sergio http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92639 Sergio Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:17:30 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92639 <p>There are two questions here. One is whether Viacom is right. I would contend that if YouTube is hosting copyright material and profiting from doing so, then unequivocally YES. The second question is, what if Viacom can actually convince a jury that it's right? When this whole Google-YouTube deal went down, we all kinda expected that Google could either sooth relations with media companies or muscle them to stay quiet, but it seems that Google can do neither. I don't think that anyone has been thinking what might happen if this whole thing actually backfires.</p> There are two questions here. One is whether Viacom is right. I would contend that if YouTube is hosting copyright material and profiting from doing so, then unequivocally YES. The second question is, what if Viacom can actually convince a jury that it’s right? When this whole Google-YouTube deal went down, we all kinda expected that Google could either sooth relations with media companies or muscle them to stay quiet, but it seems that Google can do neither. I don’t think that anyone has been thinking what might happen if this whole thing actually backfires.

]]> By: Vamshi http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92634 Vamshi Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:08:44 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92634 <p>Om, surprised to see you justify G-YT so much here. Surely's it is about Google's money, Viacom would probably not have sued if it was still a garage entity. Surely it is becuase negotiations must have failed on revenue sharing or some other commercials. But that does take anything away from the copyright infringement part.</p> <p>You Tube did not just show a blind eye. They have enabled users to search for illegal content and monetise it. What is the blind-eye here. When you say YT is taking content off for all media owners, it sounds like Google PR speak. Even now if you search for a Comedy Central on YT you have 100s of clips which come up.</p> <p>How different is YouTube from Napster in what it is doing, from the point of view of respecting the copyright.</p> Om, surprised to see you justify G-YT so much here. Surely’s it is about Google’s money, Viacom would probably not have sued if it was still a garage entity. Surely it is becuase negotiations must have failed on revenue sharing or some other commercials. But that does take anything away from the copyright infringement part.

You Tube did not just show a blind eye. They have enabled users to search for illegal content and monetise it. What is the blind-eye here. When you say YT is taking content off for all media owners, it sounds like Google PR speak. Even now if you search for a Comedy Central on YT you have 100s of clips which come up.

How different is YouTube from Napster in what it is doing, from the point of view of respecting the copyright.

]]> By: Ramki http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92637 Ramki Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:05:21 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92637 <p>The model of advertising is different between the web and the traditional media companies. And this can be a cause for concern for Viacom since Google would control what ads would be placed and where for the content that is available on Youtube. And this could be further trouble for traditional media companies as they might get paid based on actual views rather than on the dicey viewership ratings that are used now-a-days.</p> The model of advertising is different between the web and the traditional media companies. And this can be a cause for concern for Viacom since Google would control what ads would be placed and where for the content that is available on Youtube. And this could be further trouble for traditional media companies as they might get paid based on actual views rather than on the dicey viewership ratings that are used now-a-days.

]]> By: Mark Sigal http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92638 Mark Sigal Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:07:39 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92638 <p>This is a mating ritual, nothing more, IMHO. Just part of a natural process of shaking Google down for better economic terms and more to the point, defining an ORCHESTRATED strategy by which the companies can work together.</p> <p>I continue to believe that the real value of such short form content is in its role as the virtual water cooler since these clips generate buzz, attention and conversations around a content owner’s long form content (i.e., the actual broadcasted program), which is where they make their real coin.</p> <p>These same companies after all SPEND millions of dollars advertising these very same programs.</p> <p>That said, the paradox is as much about CONTROL as it is about economics. Control of brand, control of content quality and control of monetization decisions.</p> <p>One such approach that reconciles these issues is my own company’s vQuote video sampling technology, which deals with branding, attribution and monetization in a systematic fashion.</p> <p>I won’t arm wave as this isn’t the forum but if interested in such things, here is a URL: http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2007/01/vsocial_launche.html</p> <p>Regards,</p> <p>Mark Sigal vSocial, Inc. - Say it with Video www.vsocial.com</p> This is a mating ritual, nothing more, IMHO. Just part of a natural process of shaking Google down for better economic terms and more to the point, defining an ORCHESTRATED strategy by which the companies can work together.

I continue to believe that the real value of such short form content is in its role as the virtual water cooler since these clips generate buzz, attention and conversations around a content owner’s long form content (i.e., the actual broadcasted program), which is where they make their real coin.

These same companies after all SPEND millions of dollars advertising these very same programs.

That said, the paradox is as much about CONTROL as it is about economics. Control of brand, control of content quality and control of monetization decisions.

One such approach that reconciles these issues is my own company’s vQuote video sampling technology, which deals with branding, attribution and monetization in a systematic fashion.

I won’t arm wave as this isn’t the forum but if interested in such things, here is a URL: (link)

Regards,

Mark Sigal
vSocial, Inc. - Say it with Video
(link)

]]> By: Noticias » Blog Archive » Demandan a YouTube por mil millones de dólares http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92633 Noticias » Blog Archive » Demandan a YouTube por mil millones de dólares Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:53:31 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92633 <p>[...] GigaOm y Error [...]</p> [...] GigaOm y Error [...]

]]> By: MovieWalah http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92632 MovieWalah Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:33:12 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92632 <p>Mia agree on the money part....regarding that line from the complaint I know it sounds a bit dramatic.....but I would agree that it does causes enough nuisance....I remember the first time someone copied one of my blog post and refused to respond to my emails....I was really pissed, but then they ultimately did...and that was just a small post and the guy wasn't even trying to monetize it by showing google ads....so I totally understand that if someone's showing off your movie or parts of your movie....as a creative person you have the right to be pissed.....and especially with a site like youtube that refuses to filter the content.....there was a line in the complaint where YT will take off only a specific video whereas some other user would have similar video uploaded by a different name.....imagine how messed up that is when you'll have to employ an army of people who go through every video and then point to YT to take it off.....it's plain arrogance on their part</p> <p>regarding the delusion part....I don't have the numbers but I can talk about the YT viewing behavior of my co-workers and only things they watched over last year or so was clips from southpark, dave chappelle, Jon stewart and entourage.....and looking at the number of views of those videos we were talking some serious numbers.....It'll be hard to find people who'll go to YT everyday to watch videos of dogs pissing over cats....or people lighting up their farts....it gets old after a while</p> Mia agree on the money part….regarding that line from the complaint I know it sounds a bit dramatic…..but I would agree that it does causes enough nuisance….I remember the first time someone copied one of my blog post and refused to respond to my emails….I was really pissed, but then they ultimately did…and that was just a small post and the guy wasn’t even trying to monetize it by showing google ads….so I totally understand that if someone’s showing off your movie or parts of your movie….as a creative person you have the right to be pissed…..and especially with a site like youtube that refuses to filter the content…..there was a line in the complaint where YT will take off only a specific video whereas some other user would have similar video uploaded by a different name…..imagine how messed up that is when you’ll have to employ an army of people who go through every video and then point to YT to take it off…..it’s plain arrogance on their part

regarding the delusion part….I don’t have the numbers but I can talk about the YT viewing behavior of my co-workers and only things they watched over last year or so was clips from southpark, dave chappelle, Jon stewart and entourage…..and looking at the number of views of those videos we were talking some serious numbers…..It’ll be hard to find people who’ll go to YT everyday to watch videos of dogs pissing over cats….or people lighting up their farts….it gets old after a while

]]> By: Sramana Mitra on Strategy » Blog Archive » Viacom Confronts YouTube http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92515 Sramana Mitra on Strategy » Blog Archive » Viacom Confronts YouTube Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:11:45 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92515 <p>[...] is that through this and other steps, the industry will develop its sustainable business models. Disruptive technology alone certainly does not give any innovator the license to apply the technolog...Einstein was quite sad about his part in the atom [...]</p> [...] is that through this and other steps, the industry will develop its sustainable business models. Disruptive technology alone certainly does not give any innovator the license to apply the technolog…Einstein was quite sad about his part in the atom [...]

]]> By: Viacom vuole un miliardo di dollari da YouTube e Google http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92521 Viacom vuole un miliardo di dollari da YouTube e Google Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:33:36 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92521 <p>[...] la crescita di Youtube e la sua capacità di attrarre nuovi utenti. Infatti, come sottolinea Om Malik, Youtube aveva acconsentito alla rimozione del materiale che Viacom aveva segnalato, e quindi in [...]</p> [...] la crescita di Youtube e la sua capacità di attrarre nuovi utenti. Infatti, come sottolinea Om Malik, Youtube aveva acconsentito alla rimozione del materiale che Viacom aveva segnalato, e quindi in [...]

]]> By: Mia Dand http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92495 Mia Dand Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:46:33 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92495 <p>This cracked me up (from the official Viacom complaint), “Defendant’s conduct is causing…Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.”</p> <p>Translate: But please be assured that won’t stop us from trying very very hard to squeeze whatever money we can from YT/Google. You gotta love these lawyers :)</p> <p>Moviewallah..your guess is as good as mine or anyone else’s. Maybe Viacom tried or maybe they didn’t…end result = they didn’t succeed.</p> <p>As far as “YT making money”…well, that depends on who you ask. What you consider pocket change seems to be serious money to Viacom, but then again, that’s not all they are after.</p> <p>Viacom’s claim is that a large part of YouTube’s popularity and the $1.65billion price tag is “directly attributable to the availability of..”Viacom’s copyrighted work on YouTube. (Wow! Does anyone else think these guys are seriously deluded?)</p> This cracked me up (from the official Viacom complaint), “Defendant’s conduct is causing…Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.”

Translate: But please be assured that won’t stop us from trying very very hard to squeeze whatever money we can from YT/Google. You gotta love these lawyers :)

Moviewallah..your guess is as good as mine or anyone else’s. Maybe Viacom tried or maybe they didn’t…end result = they didn’t succeed.

As far as “YT making money”…well, that depends on who you ask. What you consider pocket change seems to be serious money to Viacom, but then again, that’s not all they are after.

Viacom’s claim is that a large part of YouTube’s popularity and the $1.65billion price tag is “directly attributable to the availability of..”Viacom’s copyrighted work on YouTube.
(Wow! Does anyone else think these guys are seriously deluded?)

]]> By: Mia Dand http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92523 Mia Dand Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:42:15 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92523 <p>Moviewallah..your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's. Maybe Viacom tried or maybe they didn't...end result = they didn't succeed.</p> <p>As far as "YT making money"...well, that depends on who you ask. What you consider pocket change seems to be serious money to Viacom, but then again, that's not all they are after.</p> <p>Viacom's claim is that a large part of YouTube's popularity and the $1.65billion price tag is "directly attributable to the availability of.."Viacom's copyrighted work on YouTube. (Does anyone else think these guys are seriously deluded?)</p> <p>This cracked me up, "Defendant's conduct is causing...Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money."</p> <p>Translate: But please be assured that won't stop us from trying very very hard to squeeze whatever money we can from YT/Google. You gotta love these lawyers :)</p> <p>Rest of the official complaint's here -http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf</p> Moviewallah..your guess is as good as mine or anyone else’s. Maybe Viacom tried or maybe they didn’t…end result = they didn’t succeed.

As far as “YT making money”…well, that depends on who you ask. What you consider pocket change seems to be serious money to Viacom, but then again, that’s not all they are after.

Viacom’s claim is that a large part of YouTube’s popularity and the $1.65billion price tag is “directly attributable to the availability of..”Viacom’s copyrighted work on YouTube.
(Does anyone else think these guys are seriously deluded?)

This cracked me up, “Defendant’s conduct is causing…Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.”

Translate: But please be assured that won’t stop us from trying very very hard to squeeze whatever money we can from YT/Google. You gotta love these lawyers :)

Rest of the official complaint’s here -http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf

]]> By: XYHD.TV » Blog Archive » Economics of the Viacom vs YouTube suit http://gigaom.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92630 XYHD.TV » Blog Archive » Economics of the Viacom vs YouTube suit Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:36:28 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/viacom-sues-youtube-for-1-billion/#comment-92630 <p>[...] Malik Doesn’t get it. He writes about how  Viacom missed the boat and this is just an MTV vs. You Tube issue.  But he misses that [...]</p> [...] Malik Doesn’t get it. He writes about how  Viacom missed the boat and this is just an MTV vs. You Tube issue.  But he misses that [...]

]]>