San Francisco: Pointing to internal YouTube e-mail messages, Viacom said in a court filing that the video site's founders turned a blind eye when users uploaded copyrighted clips so they could amass a big audience and sell the company quickly.
The charge was one of many made by Viacom in filings unsealed Thursday in its 3-year-old copyright lawsuit against YouTube and Google, which bought YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion.
Google fired back, saying Viacom was distorting the record by taking passages from e-mail messages out of context. It also said Viacom employees and agents "continuously and secretly" uploaded clips from the company's television shows and movies to YouTube for promotional purposes, even as they were complaining about copyright violations.
The lawsuit accused YouTube of profiting from thousands of clips from Viacom movies and shows that were uploaded to the site without permission.
But more broadly, media companies remain wary of losing control as more of their products become digital, making them easier to copy.
Among them were scores of e-mail messages from YouTube's founders - Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim - discussing what to do about clips uploaded to YouTube that clearly belonged to major studios or television networks.
Chen goes on to acknowledge that much of the infringing material will remain on the site, but that users won't be able to easily stumble upon it.
One e-mail message revealed that even as YouTube's founders were discussing how to deal with copyrighted clips, one of them was uploading such material.
In another e-mail message from January 2006, a Google executive refers to a conversation with Hurley and another YouTube executive about copyrights, and compares YouTube with the much less popular Google Video service.
"YouTube is at an advantage b/c they aren't the target that we are with issues like this. They are aware of this (I spoke with them on Friday) and they plan on exploiting this in order to get more and more traffic."
In its brief, Google pointed to internal Viacom documents in which executives discussed buying YouTube and described it primarily as a place for user-created videos, not a haven for pirated content as they assert in the suit.
"Consumption of 'branded' content on YT is relatively low," an executive wrote in an internal presentation from July 2006.
Google also said Viacom filed the suit only when its negotiations over a partnership agreement with YouTube ended after Google bought the site. It said the suit was part of a push to get better licensing terms for its content.
Google said Viacom used various methods to cover its tracks when uploading videos to YouTube. It hired outside marketing agents, used e-mail addresses that couldn't be traced to Viacom when registering accounts and uploaded videos from places like Kinko's, rather than from company computers, Google said.
In one e-mail exchange, employees of the MTV unit of Viacom discussed how to alter a clip they were uploading so it would appear to be unauthorized, presumably because that might generate more interest in it online. "The goal is to make it look 'hijacked,"' one employee wrote.
"Viacom's efforts to hide the source of the content it caused to be posted on YouTube were too good," Google said in its filing, adding that "Viacom and its lawyers were unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube with Viacom's express authorization."
Given Viacom's tactics, Google argued that it would have been impossible for its employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission. One of Google's central defenses is that YouTube always complied with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by promptly taking down videos whenever a copyright owner said they had been uploaded without permission.
The Viacom filing suggests that as Google was trying to compete with YouTube in early 2006, executives at the highest levels of Google debated whether to emulate YouTube's more lax approach to copyright.
"Is changing our policy to increase traffic knowing before that we'll profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?" asked David Eun, then a vice president for content partnerships.
The filings suggest that Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive, supported a more liberal copyright policy for Google Video, while Sergey Brin, a co-founder, opposed it.
At one point, a Google Video executive recoiled at the notion that Google would buy YouTube: "I can't believe you're recommending buying YouTube... they're 80 (PERCENT) illegal pirated content." Google bought
YouTube six months later. While most media companies are no longer fighting with YouTube, some of the biggest still view it as a rival. Despite a multitude of content deals, YouTube has struggled to build a large database of full-length television shows and movies. And it faces rising competition for that kind of content from sites like Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal, Fox and ABC.
The charge was one of many made by Viacom in filings unsealed Thursday in its 3-year-old copyright lawsuit against YouTube and Google, which bought YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion.
Google fired back, saying Viacom was distorting the record by taking passages from e-mail messages out of context. It also said Viacom employees and agents "continuously and secretly" uploaded clips from the company's television shows and movies to YouTube for promotional purposes, even as they were complaining about copyright violations.
The lawsuit accused YouTube of profiting from thousands of clips from Viacom movies and shows that were uploaded to the site without permission.
Advertisement
But more broadly, media companies remain wary of losing control as more of their products become digital, making them easier to copy.
Advertisement
Among them were scores of e-mail messages from YouTube's founders - Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim - discussing what to do about clips uploaded to YouTube that clearly belonged to major studios or television networks.
Advertisement
Chen goes on to acknowledge that much of the infringing material will remain on the site, but that users won't be able to easily stumble upon it.
Advertisement
One e-mail message revealed that even as YouTube's founders were discussing how to deal with copyrighted clips, one of them was uploading such material.
Advertisement
In another e-mail message from January 2006, a Google executive refers to a conversation with Hurley and another YouTube executive about copyrights, and compares YouTube with the much less popular Google Video service.
"YouTube is at an advantage b/c they aren't the target that we are with issues like this. They are aware of this (I spoke with them on Friday) and they plan on exploiting this in order to get more and more traffic."
In its brief, Google pointed to internal Viacom documents in which executives discussed buying YouTube and described it primarily as a place for user-created videos, not a haven for pirated content as they assert in the suit.
"Consumption of 'branded' content on YT is relatively low," an executive wrote in an internal presentation from July 2006.
Google also said Viacom filed the suit only when its negotiations over a partnership agreement with YouTube ended after Google bought the site. It said the suit was part of a push to get better licensing terms for its content.
Google said Viacom used various methods to cover its tracks when uploading videos to YouTube. It hired outside marketing agents, used e-mail addresses that couldn't be traced to Viacom when registering accounts and uploaded videos from places like Kinko's, rather than from company computers, Google said.
In one e-mail exchange, employees of the MTV unit of Viacom discussed how to alter a clip they were uploading so it would appear to be unauthorized, presumably because that might generate more interest in it online. "The goal is to make it look 'hijacked,"' one employee wrote.
"Viacom's efforts to hide the source of the content it caused to be posted on YouTube were too good," Google said in its filing, adding that "Viacom and its lawyers were unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this case were uploaded to YouTube with Viacom's express authorization."
Given Viacom's tactics, Google argued that it would have been impossible for its employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission. One of Google's central defenses is that YouTube always complied with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by promptly taking down videos whenever a copyright owner said they had been uploaded without permission.
The Viacom filing suggests that as Google was trying to compete with YouTube in early 2006, executives at the highest levels of Google debated whether to emulate YouTube's more lax approach to copyright.
"Is changing our policy to increase traffic knowing before that we'll profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?" asked David Eun, then a vice president for content partnerships.
The filings suggest that Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive, supported a more liberal copyright policy for Google Video, while Sergey Brin, a co-founder, opposed it.
At one point, a Google Video executive recoiled at the notion that Google would buy YouTube: "I can't believe you're recommending buying YouTube... they're 80 (PERCENT) illegal pirated content." Google bought
YouTube six months later. While most media companies are no longer fighting with YouTube, some of the biggest still view it as a rival. Despite a multitude of content deals, YouTube has struggled to build a large database of full-length television shows and movies. And it faces rising competition for that kind of content from sites like Hulu, a joint venture between NBC Universal, Fox and ABC.
COMMENTS
Advertisement
Case Against YouTube Channel Over Violating Privacy Of Missing Driver's Son US Teen Charged After He Deliberately Forces Train To Crash For A YouTube Video Days After Microsoft Outage, YouTube Down For Some Users Astrologer Who Correctly Predicted Biden Exit, Now 'Names' Next US President Day After 3 Die In Basement, 13 "Illegal" Coaching Centres Sealed In Delhi Woman's Product Review Lands Her Job Offer From Sleepy Owl Coffee Founder Political Slugfest After Drainage, Flouted Norms Leads To 3 Deaths In Delhi CAT 2024: All You Need To Know About This Year's Changes Day After 3 Die In Basement, 13 "Illegal" Coaching Centres Sealed In Delhi Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.