Google?s ?don?t be evil? motto has a new challenge: a $1 billion Viacom lawsuit over YouTube for ?massive intentional copyright infringement?. Actually, the challenge isn?t new: the lawsuit was filed in 2007. What is creating all the buzz now is the public release of court documents from the case.
At first, Viacom?s complaint appears to be straightforward: Google financially benefits from copyrighted material, including Viacom?s, which YouTube users illegally post on the Google-owned Web site. Viacom, an American media conglomerate, owns popular channels such as MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, as well as film companies like Paramount. As YouTube relies on its users for posting video, some of the content uploaded violates copyrights held by companies like Viacom.
Therefore, Viacom wants Google held responsible for copyright infringement.
That accusation is unfair, Google claims. By Google?s analysis, YouTube operates in accordance with the norms established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under which hosting sites such as YouTube are not responsible for copyright infringement as long as they remove user-posted content upon learning that it is copyrighted material. YouTube has a system in place whereby users flag inappropriate or copyrighted content for removal, and copyrighted material is also removed when the copyright holder notifies YouTube of the infringement, Google says. Google has also developed and installed software on YouTube that scans videos to detect and automatically remove illegal content. These steps, Google claims, prove that Google has met its responsibilities to keep copyrighted material off its site.
Viacom counters that Google?s intentions and actions are not so pure. Viacom cites evidence that Google purchased YouTube under the assumption that much of its revenues would come from illegal content. One Google Video executive questioned the purchase, saying, ?I can?t believe you?re recommending buying YouTube… they?re 80% illegal pirated content.? Even Google co-founder Sergey Brin had doubts. Viacom has also produced e-mail exchanges between the YouTube founders from the site?s early days that show one co-founder encouraged the posting of ?stolen? (i.e., copyrighted) videos because they boosted the site?s revenue. Google, Viacom therefore concludes, knowingly purchased an intrinsically illegal site. Essentially, Viacom claims Google seeks to profit off the site?s illegal content, which Google, on the other hand, claims to not control.
In a lawsuit of twists and turns, Google pulls out one of its own: back in 2006, Viacom had its own eyes on YouTube and was considering an acquisition of what it now claims to be a site built to profit from illegal content. Google chalks up the current lawsuit to jealousy over its successful bid for the contested site.
The final element of intrigue is a claim by YouTube that Viacom secretly uploaded its content onto YouTube while publicly complaining about YouTube showing unauthorised copyrighted material. Zahavah Levine, YouTube?s chief counsel, wrote, ?[Viacom] hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately ?roughed up? the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.? And that wasn?t all. According to Levine, Viacom ?opened YouTube accounts using phony e-mail addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko?s to upload clips from computers that couldn?t be traced to Viacom.? If such claims are true, Viacom?s indignation over the copyrighted material on YouTube looks more like posturing.
At present, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this suit. A settlement could mean a big payout to Viacom or a profit-sharing agreement between the two parties. If the case goes to trial, the judge may issue a verdict that reinterprets the law in Viacom?s favour, a move that would revolutionise how sites that host user-uploaded content function. Of course, any trial outcome would prompt an appeal from the losing party.
The most serious impact of the lawsuit is that it deals yet another blow to Google?s reputation. Once considered an innovative company that offers great online products for free, Google is gradually being perceived as a company that engages in borderline practices and profits at others? expense. The list of such examples is growing long: copyright issues over Google?s book scanning project, Rupert Murdoch?s accusations that Google News steals revenues from media companies and privacy concerns over Google Buzz, just to name a few. Google?s immense success has prompted competitors, like Microsoft and Yahoo!, to team up against it. Lawsuits like Viacom?s feed suspicions about Google?s intentions and tactics and provide fodder to Google?s enemies.
To protect its reputation, Google must keep doing what it does best: providing top-notch innovative Web resources free-of-charge. As long as users don?t feel harmed by Google?s overreaching, they are likely to remain loyal to the Web giant.