Viacom Sues YouTube, Google For $1B

Claims Web Site Broke Copyright Laws By Providing 160,000 Unauthorized Video Clips

(CBS/AP)  MTV owner Viacom Inc. said Tuesday it has sued YouTube and its corporate parent Google Inc. for alleged copyright infringement and is seeking more than $1 billion in damages.

The complaint contends that roughly 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom programming have been available on the popular video-sharing Web site. In addition to MTV, Viacom also owns a number of other cable networks including VH1, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

Viacom said YouTube's business model, "which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."

In February Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized video clips from its site after several months of talks between the companies broke down.

Viacom filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is also seeking an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from using its clips.

A Google spokesperson e-mailed CBS News correspondent Daniel Sieberg saying, "We have not received the lawsuit, but are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree."

The spokesperson added, "We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users, more traffic and build a stronger community."

Google shares dropped $4.82, or 1.1 percent, to $449.93 in Tuesday morning trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market, while Viacom's Class B shares rose 43 cents, or 1.1 percent, to $40 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Under federal copyright law, online services such as YouTube are generally immune from liability as long as it responds to takedown requests such as these, which YouTube often does. Less clear legally is what happens when another user posts the same video, something commonly done on the free video-sharing site.

"YouTube's terms of service prohibit posting copyrighted material without permission, but they don't have an effective way of blocking people if the individuals decide to go ahead and do that," CBS News technology analyst Larry Magid said.

YouTube said in a statement last month that it would comply with the request from Viacom and said it cooperates "with all copyright holders to identify and promptly remove infringing content as soon as we are officially notified."

The company also said it was "unfortunate that Viacom will no longer be able to benefit from YouTube's passionate audience which has helped to promote many of Viacom's shows."

In November, YouTube agreed to delete nearly 30,000 files after the Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers complained of copyright infringement.

Some media companies such as CBS Corp. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal have made deals to allow YouTube to use video clips from their programming, but others have yet to agree with the site over ways to get compensated for the use of their copyrighted material.

Universal Music Group, a division of French telecommunications giant Vivendi SA, had threatened to sue YouTube for copyright infringement, saying it was a hub for pirated music videos, but later reached a licensing deal with them last year.

Despite Viacom's problems with YouTube, the company's MTV Networks division reached a licensing deal last year with Google that allows the search company's video service to use clips from MTV and its sibling networks under a revenue-sharing agreement.

[galileo07-2009]

Viacom has little grounds for their argument. You Tube qualifies as an online service provider in Title II of the DMCA and is generally protected from IP infringement claims as long as it meets its rights and obligations.

Viacom has complained about the enormous task of monitoring for infringement, but that is process required by law. The DMCA requires the OSP to remove material once it is notified of copyrighted works - thus requiring that the owner, Viacom, notify You Tube to hold it accountable. Google has been responded by removing copyrighted work from their website.

You Tube claims Google is not using measures to screen for copyrighted material but presents no technology to achieve this. Viacom's argument only holds weight if they can prove that You Tube has the ability to control posting of copyrighted material.

Viacom would have an easier case against the individuals who post copyrighted material and have a legal right to identify the offenders.

[michellem99-2009]

I will say the problem is greed. I love star trek so I was sad when they pulled enterprise as I watched it each week.

[michellem99-2009]

I love Google. I feel that MSN could be good but they need to get their act together as they don't do as well as Google.I love MSN mail after having to get it workrd out with them. I am not sure yahoo format. MSN format for web is not as good as Google. I use both.

[anopinion1]

god would i love to see youtube fall..
what they need to do for people to post something is to have it submitted into youtube and they HAVE TO review it and decide if they will allow it to be posted!!!!!!!!!!
i suppose this would take way to much money to employ enough people....awsome i hope the fall hurts................

[rudy654-2009]

Funny thing. I went to an artist's website and to view one of his videos, he links to three different places. One of those places is YouTube. When I went to YouTube it said his video had been removed due to Viacom's suit. Somebody forgot to tell the artist that Viacom get's to say where his video is seen!

[nothappyatall]

What a load, those video clips are hardly any bigger than a playing card, their quality is very poor, compressed to death to keep file sizes small and you can't save them as files.

[hypnotoad72]

Rubbish. Youtube provides a service. Is it their fault supposed thieves take advantage of it? (BTW: I don't upload to it, but I don't see the harm - fuzzy picture quality and hissy audio pirate copies do not make... and seeing a clip has led me to buying a few DVDs and signing petitions for more to be released. I'm not alone with that, so maybe the companies will see it's a good thing - or at least put up their own clips and clip sites to encourage purchasing?)

BTW: When will gun stores be sued for providing the means for killers to do their dirty work?

[bildooreilly]

Have you cable/satellite television shut off, satellite radio, stop paying for media..... Let them rot... it's all trash anyways.

[Syndicate]

Google should counter sue for all the free advertising they have given to Viacom products. I wonder how many people watched something on youtube, loved it and went out and bought it. How many millions has Viacom made because of youtubes free commercials? Viacom can blow me. I'm still mad at them for canceling ENTERPRISE.

[billpl-2009]

the media giants will never be happy until they plant microchips in everyone's eyes and ears, so they can charge royalties every time you watch or listen to their stuff.
Fact is. Music, theatre, literature are culture NOT a products. Fine, you want to buy a CD or book, go to the movies or a play, go right ahead, but listen to a friend's CD or MP3's, watch a video, or borrow a book?....Too bad media giants, you'll prolong the battle, but you're still going to loose the war.

[l8c6]

Viacom is a trashy sell out media pimp.

[alphaa10-2009]

Note that negotiations had been ongoing for months. There is also ample precedent for such legal action. The similar Napster decision completely restructured the way Napster did business-- turning Napster into yet another digital rights management vending machine for IP wares.

[CBSTV]

The problem with Google Video and YouTube is that they profit by posting content that does not belong to them. This might be considered "Fair Use" if there was no profit motive -- but they run advertising on their web sites.

[smb221]

1 Billion? That's freaking insane!