Google vs. Viacom: Who Will Win?

Google's finally responded to the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube exactly as many predicted it would: by taking the common carrier defense provided in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Whether that defense will work is up to the courts. But Google is in a much better position to defend itself against copyright violation changes than peer-to-peer networks were several years ago, when music companies went after the likes of Grokster and the original Napster for similar offenses. For one, Google's YouTube has always limited the length of video clips that you can upload to its service, making users have to work much harder if they want to share full-length copyrighted material. For another, YouTube has a take-down mechanism in place, and has indicated that it would comply with copyright holders when asked to remove material. Plus it does use tools to try to filter out copyrighted content from being uploaded in the first place--however ineffective Viacom argues them to be--and is working on improving those tools even now.

But more than that, unlike P2Ps, YouTube doesn't depend on copyrighted material for its success. A recent study by Vidmeter.com said that less than 10 percent of the site's most popular videos were owned by copyright holders who want them gone, as fellow PC World blogger Cathy Lu pointed out. Even if the study's numbers are too low, as Viacom and other content owners allege, it seems clear that a significant portion of YouTube's appeal and success owes nothing to copyrighted content.

In addition, Google Video has content deals in place with some copyright owners and has shared ad revenue with them, a practice that is migrating to YouTube. That makes Google look much more like a partner than a pirate.

That doesn't mean Viacom doesn't have a good case. Despite the take down notice Viacom served YouTube, the sheer volume of content on YouTube practically guarantees that some Viacom material remains on the site (as has been demonstrated), which also means that the tools meant to catch such content aren't doing a thorough job.

As others have said, it's unlikely that YouTube will go away, no matter what the outcome of the court case. As it was in the court case against P2Ps, what's really at stake here is the standard that Google and other Web service providers will have to meet in order to protect themselves in the event that users upload and share copyrighted content on their service.

The Supreme Court delivered a fairly balanced opinion on that score with the Grokster decision in 2005. If this case gets that far--and it very well may--one can only hope that the court does so again.
Source : http://blogs.pcworld.com