YouTube: Why Google is running scared

YouTube: Why Google is running scared

Summary: Google’s trademark Googley super confidence is no where to be seen in its in-house litigation counsel’s blustery quid pro quo Washington Post retort to Viacom general counsel Michael Fricklas’s prior op-ed.While defiant, Michael Kwun is pithy, to a fault.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Legal
8

Google’s trademark Googley super confidence is no where to be seen in its in-house litigation counsel’s blustery quid pro quo Washington Post retort to Viacom general counsel Michael Fricklas’s prior op-ed.

While defiant, Michael Kwun is pithy, to a fault. It is ironic that his indignant “reply” to Viacom reads more like snack-size text-culture, than a lawyerly, fact-based argument. If he will be heading up Google’s $1 billion “massive copyright infringement” defense, Viacom may benefit.

Kwun: “Viacom's lawsuit is an attack on the way people communicate on the Web and on the platforms that allow people to make the Internet their own.”

NO, Viacom’s action is a civil action business as usual solicitation of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to order Google to cease directly or indirectly infringing, or causing, enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting and inducing or participating in the infringement of any of Viacom’s exclusive rights protected by the Copyright Act.

The DMCA, in fact, states a right of “injured persons” to bring civil actions to obtain civil remedies in appropriate United States district courts.

Kwun: “In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress struck a careful balance between the rights of the copyright holder and the need to protect the Internet as an innovative communication frontier, not as another venue for litigation.”

NO, “Congress recognized the only thing that remains constant is change. The enactment of the DMCA was only the beginning of an ongoing evaluation by Congress on the relationship between technological change and U.S. copyright law,” Statement of Mary Beth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives 107th Congress, 1st Session, December 12-13, 2001.

Kwun: “Content-hosting sites such as YouTube, Craigslist and MySpace that want to take advantage of the DMCA's safe harbors must promptly remove infringing content if the copyright owner so requests, giving owners a quick remedy that doesn't require going to court. Copyright owners, in return, have the responsibility to identify infringing material they want removed. Viacom's lawyers helped craft this law but apparently don't like it, after all. They want to shirk the responsibility Congress gave them. Placing that burden on hosting platforms would turn the DMCA on its head.”

NO, Elements of notification required by the DMCA are not absolute:

Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

The DMCA, in fact, puts the onus on “content hosting sites such as YouTube” to promptly attempt to:

contact the person making the notification or take other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions.

I debunk Kwun’s wishful thinking “Fortunately, the law is clear, and on our side,” not so rousing conclusion in “Google vs. Viacom: Will Michael Kwun eat his DMCA words?

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will not be swayed by Kwun’s not so Googley “he said, she said” anti Viacom emotional diatribe.

ALSO: YouTube: Why Google fears $1 billion Unsafe Harbor and YouTube: What Google CEO Eric Schmidt really thinks and Why Google will never pay for content and Google’s Ten Commandments

Topic: Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

8 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Kwun's reply was meant to be simple

    [b]"?reply? to Viacom reads more like snack-size text-culture, than a lawyerly, fact-based argument." [/b] - He(or she) is not replying to a court of a law, but to a newspaper. His reply is clear enough for a anyone to understand - which is his objective.

    [b]NO, Viacom?s action is a civil action business as usual solicitation of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to order Google to cease directly or indirectly infringing, or causing, enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting and inducing or participating in the infringement of any of Viacom?s exclusive rights protected by the Copyright Act.[/b] - Are you a lawyer ? and I guess you dont believe in simple words and sentences.

    I accept I am a google fan, but your article is too notched up to be of any use to a commoner. May be you should stop writing articles for an internet magazine and instead be a full time lawyer. I think Kwun would be afar better writer for zdnet. He can convey things in simple words.

    BTW your article doesnt corroborate your title ..
    n_zamana
  • Googl is not running scared.

    They are more professional in their approach in resolving problems. You would say the same about IBM. 'IBM ran scared of SCO'. Many would consider Google as a company that brought back competition to computing. If you have personnel problems with Google. time to get help.
    PaulWallen
    • Who needs help?

      He who hates Google with no reservations, or he who loves Google with no reservations?
      John Zern
  • This is part of Google's business model

    Google has gone on record, more than once, that their business model consists of pushing the limits of the law and common practice. They basically are in it to see how much they can get away with, is my personal perception of it. They have a large contingent of lawyers and know they are constantly going to be battling others who claim they are infringing. They know that going in, they are simply banking on winning.
    IMHO, of course.
    xuniL_z
    • Business models

      [pre]Google has gone on record, more than once, that their business model consists of pushing the limits of the law and common practice. They basically are in it to see how much they can get away with, is my personal perception of it. They have a large contingent of lawyers and know they are constantly going to be battling others who claim they are infringing. They know that going in, they are simply banking on winning.
      IMHO, of course.[/pre]

      Well, that seems to be how corporations tend to act in general--they exist solely to make money for their shareholders, and everything they do is with that goal in mind. Google would probably be one of the few companies that so openly walks (and perhaps occasionally crosses) the line (either in terms of the law or public opinion), but they are by no means the only company. Remember Sony/BMG and Ubisoft with their rootkit-infested CDs? Or, for that matter, the Ford Pinto?
      Third of Five
  • People, the fact is Google will

    either pay out a huge settlemnt or lose. There is no other possible outcome. End of Story.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
  • youtube

    http://www.analogstereo.com
    swe_forum
  • RE: YouTube: Why Google is running scared

    Is the author of this post an idiot? Sounds to me like the author is the one eating crow, seeing how Viacom has been getting their asses handed to them in court.
    Watfor