This is astounding:

“For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It 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. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. …

“Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

“Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. …

“Viacom’s brief misconstrues isolated lines from a handful of e-mails produced in this case to try to show that YouTube was founded with bad intentions, and asks the judge to believe that, even though Viacom tried repeatedly to buy YouTube, YouTube is like Napster or Grokster.”

The YouTube version of how things went down.


See also Sony accuses Beyonce of piracy for putting her videos on YouTube

Category: Intellectual Property, Legal, Web/Tech, Weekend

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “YouTube Chief Counsel: Viacom is Scum”

  1. Mannwich says:

    Did Viacom make into this year’s “Worst Company” tourney? If so, how did they fare? Final Four?

  2. hammerandtong2001 says:



    The legacy media conglomerates, in publishing, cable and broadcast, haven’t the faintest clue about which digital media outlet might work, and grow and/or why. Yet, their future business depends on it. The legacy providers, through consolidation and cost compression, have created business models predicated on growth rates roughly eequivalent to avg GDP growth. When “new” things show up that can disrupt this path to oligopoly — and the mindless recurring profits they seek — then that’s trouble.

    It would stand to reason that each and all of the legacy providers have done significant amounts of surrepticious sneaking around, and not just at You Tube, but at dozens of others, too. It would further stand to reason that this is won’t be confined to Viacom — I would expect to see and hear similar and lrager scale stories of a simliar strain focusing on those legacy businesses under the most severe strain and disruption, i.e., publishers, especially newspapers.

    The legacy providers are being “strategically” defeated: overburdened with debt and unwieldly vast bureaucracies, where could Viacom ever come up with Google’s $1.65 billion — IN CASH — to buy You Tube? Google just paid $750 million — IN CASH — to buy Ad Mob, the mobile ad serving firm which was doing all of $40 million topline. Google, Microsoft, et al, have more financial capability than Viacom, and they’re using it.

    That’s what this lawsuit is all about — but under the guise of IP protection.


  3. peachin says:

    The Internet is the ultimate “Level Playing Field” – It is bigger than (sic) even China. The Entertainment Industry is on their Knees – Publishers – must learn how to use it or be put “on the bench.” Someone tries to charge ($) for something and someone else will provide “that thing” for free – and still make $$$. Microsoft owned it all – and then – later which is now – stand in line with 2nd rate programs….maybe 3rd.

    God Bless the Internet, God Bless Obama – and may all the Hubris, Ego and Greed choke on their own bullshit!

  4. radioman says:

    If Viacom hid their actions by using Kinko’s computers, how were they ever found out? How do we know any of this is true?

  5. Greg0658 says:

    some call these kind of things false flag operations .. I saw “Shooter” was on the tube again last night x2
    without transparency with this internet thingie .. where will we be .. just watching that show and giving it a Nielsonlike rating helps someones cause .. this whole concept of disaster capit@l’ism .. which I captured a spin off concept from reading this book