The billion-dollar battle between Viacom and Google
It had to come. A battle between the owner of intellectual property and the user on a grand scale over copyright infringement.
The Viacom v Google intellectual property legal bust up is certainly on a grand scale. Viacom is claiming $1 billion for the infringements of Google’s new subsidiary YouTube. Viacom says YouTube has 160,000 items in its database that are Viacom material. And Viacom says they have been seen over 1.1 billion times. Hence, we assume, the $1 billion damages claim: $1 for every view.
The case may never get to court. Both sides may decide that negotiation is better than a lengthy legal process. It would be a pity if it does not. Because a Court ruling on the issues embedded in the case would help clarify many things.
Key among the issues is the line between quoting and using a substantial part of the material. Under copyright, a quote should be OK if it is attributed. And the material on YouTube is clearly attributed. Nobody who has put Viacom material on YouTube claims they made it.
But is it substantial if it is a few minutes of an hour-long TV show?
Property versus use
At the heart of the battle is the different attitudes taken by the owners of intellectual property and the users. This battle has been at the heart of copyright since it started. The first copyright act was as long ago as 1709 in England and Wales. The old absolutist control of printing broke down in the period of enlightenment after the “Glorious Revolution of 1688”.
Families who had owned the old regulated presses in London were hit by a wave of new competition from newly-established printers. The old families petitioned Parliament and, after three tries, persuaded parliament to grant them a monopoly on the things they printed first. Hence the copyright act which shows who has the right to copy.
From books in 1709 to the Internet today
I found a print of the full original copyright act in the excellent Westminster Reference Library, just down from Leicester Square. The Act makes it plain who was to benefit from this monopoly…..
From this start in England and Wales the notion of copyright spread. It was spread from books to other media as that media emerged. Newspapers, magazines, prints, cinema, radio, TV and, as we see, the Internet were all enfolded in the cloak of copyright.
The length of monopoly was extended from the original 14 years from publication to today’s 70 years from publication or the death of the author, if the author is known.
And it was spread through the world. Today a worldwide organisation, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) with its 184 member states is creating a uniform global intellectual property regime.
WIPO created global copyright
WIPO has already tackled copyright and the formal law across the globe is pretty uniform. I say “formal” law because although passed into law among the 184 nations, some do not observe it as rigorously as in other countries. The USA government is, for example, always complaining that the Chinese government does not implement its copyright law effectively enough.
Interestingly, the Viacom v Google case is being fought in the USA. Perhaps a Chinese publisher will turn round and accuse Google of infringements.
Google has argued that the clips on YouTube give Viacom’s material free advertising. Viacom argues that Google has done nothing to stop the infringements.
The Creative Commons movement may well weigh in on the side of Google. “The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others legally to build upon and share,” says Wikipedia. Here’s it’s logo:
You can see the idea in the slogan: No Rights Reserved. Not exactly the slogan of Viacom. Let battle commence.
Links to:
Click here for Viacom’s statement
Click here for more on the Creative Commons:
Google is silent on the matter so far, but you can check their corporate press site.
The Viacom v Google intellectual property legal bust up is certainly on a grand scale. Viacom is claiming $1 billion for the infringements of Google’s new subsidiary YouTube. Viacom says YouTube has 160,000 items in its database that are Viacom material. And Viacom says they have been seen over 1.1 billion times. Hence, we assume, the $1 billion damages claim: $1 for every view.
The case may never get to court. Both sides may decide that negotiation is better than a lengthy legal process. It would be a pity if it does not. Because a Court ruling on the issues embedded in the case would help clarify many things.
Key among the issues is the line between quoting and using a substantial part of the material. Under copyright, a quote should be OK if it is attributed. And the material on YouTube is clearly attributed. Nobody who has put Viacom material on YouTube claims they made it.
But is it substantial if it is a few minutes of an hour-long TV show?
Property versus use
At the heart of the battle is the different attitudes taken by the owners of intellectual property and the users. This battle has been at the heart of copyright since it started. The first copyright act was as long ago as 1709 in England and Wales. The old absolutist control of printing broke down in the period of enlightenment after the “Glorious Revolution of 1688”.
Families who had owned the old regulated presses in London were hit by a wave of new competition from newly-established printers. The old families petitioned Parliament and, after three tries, persuaded parliament to grant them a monopoly on the things they printed first. Hence the copyright act which shows who has the right to copy.
From books in 1709 to the Internet today
I found a print of the full original copyright act in the excellent Westminster Reference Library, just down from Leicester Square. The Act makes it plain who was to benefit from this monopoly…..
From this start in England and Wales the notion of copyright spread. It was spread from books to other media as that media emerged. Newspapers, magazines, prints, cinema, radio, TV and, as we see, the Internet were all enfolded in the cloak of copyright.
The length of monopoly was extended from the original 14 years from publication to today’s 70 years from publication or the death of the author, if the author is known.
And it was spread through the world. Today a worldwide organisation, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) with its 184 member states is creating a uniform global intellectual property regime.
WIPO created global copyright
WIPO has already tackled copyright and the formal law across the globe is pretty uniform. I say “formal” law because although passed into law among the 184 nations, some do not observe it as rigorously as in other countries. The USA government is, for example, always complaining that the Chinese government does not implement its copyright law effectively enough.
Interestingly, the Viacom v Google case is being fought in the USA. Perhaps a Chinese publisher will turn round and accuse Google of infringements.
Google has argued that the clips on YouTube give Viacom’s material free advertising. Viacom argues that Google has done nothing to stop the infringements.
The Creative Commons movement may well weigh in on the side of Google. “The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others legally to build upon and share,” says Wikipedia. Here’s it’s logo:
You can see the idea in the slogan: No Rights Reserved. Not exactly the slogan of Viacom. Let battle commence.
Links to:
Click here for Viacom’s statement
Click here for more on the Creative Commons:
Google is silent on the matter so far, but you can check their corporate press site.
Labels: "intellectual property"
posted by Richard Sharpe at
11:49
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home