Viacom vs YouTube: "Smoking Gun" Evidence Could Decide Case

[admin]

The Viacom versus YouTube court case, over the video sharing website's alleged copyright infringement (or allowing it to go on) may be decided by some recent evidence that Viacom has been able to obtain, which suggests that YouTube managers knew about the unauthorized content problem but chose not to remove said material from the website.

There was also claims that YouTube employees themselves uploaded unauthorized content to the website.

Google, which now owns YouTube, has hit back by requesting information on "Viacom's decisions to upload or authorize the uploading of videos to YouTube" and "for allowing videos to remain on YouTube for marketing promotional or other business reasons". Google's strategy here may be to point out that if Viacom employees are uploading clips to YouTube, then how is YouTube supposed to know if these clips are authorized or not. Viacom obviously benefits from these clips being uploaded, even with unauthorized clips, and it perhaps ought to be up to the content owners like Viacom to make the decision as to what should be removed or not, with the responsibility not placed on YouTube.

Video sharing website Veoh recently won a similar court case after Universal Music claim similar copyright infringement, and YouTube will be hoping their court case end up with a similar result.

More:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10365329-261.html

[drfsupercenter]

Why can't Viacom realize that they aren't making money because *all of their videos suck*, not because of YouTube?

The sooner they get that through their thick skulls, the sooner the rest of the world can go back to their everyday lives...