Viacom slaps Google with $1 billion lawsuit

Post by volida » Tue, Mar 13, 2007, 9:36 PM UTC

e1ven wrote: post #5

This is a great thing, and IMO, exactly why Google bought Youtube.. They paid for this lawsuit. When you think about it, everything Google does, the Cache, Google Groups, The Image search, and even their golden baby, Search, requires that they deal with the copyrighted material of other people.. It's their bread and butter. They can do it under the law, or at least their lawyers are convinced they can, because of a l…

I don't think the argument with Sequoia Capital stands because they invenst in many other companies. So, why didn't some other company bought YouTube? Because obviously Google really wanted to make the aqcuisition...

Post by mynameishere » Wed, Mar 14, 2007, 5:11 PM UTC

Seems odd to witness a lot of business-type people arguing (or at least leaning) in favor of copyright infringement.

I mean, we could argue for a while about whether some kid should be allowed to download songs off of bittorrent. That's just some kid. But then, you have a huge corporation doing almost the same (okay, okay, with all due equivocations, like: They're only hosting/distributing, not uploading). Well, google isn't distributing video out of a love of the artform. I mean, person X builds/owns something, and person Y profits from it, or at least tries to. See no problem there? It might come down to "might makes right" here, if google has sufficiently expensive lawyers.

The seemingly obvious solution is to tack a 15-second advertisement on the videos and then share the proceeds with the owner.

Re: Viacom slaps Google with $1 billion lawsuit

Re: Viacom slaps Google with $1 billion lawsuit