Grokster inducement theory

Vidmeter study refutes Viacom’s copyright allegations against YouTube

April 5, 2007

News: Shortly after Viacom sued YouTube, I questioned in this post whether Viacom’s factual allegations in its complaint were way overblown, specifically those contending that YouTube’s business model is built on a “massive” amount of infringing files. Based on my own daily review of YouTube videos, that seemed untrue. Most of the files on YouTube appear to me to be user-created content or home videos. Viacom complained about 130,000 files — that number would comprise less than an even a small fraction of one percent of the several billion files on YouTube. And most of the most popular videos on YouTube are user-generated content.

This week, Vidmeter.com, an online site that tracks video sharing online, has issued a report substantiating some of my points and the relatively modest role that infringing files play on YouTube. From a 3-month study of the most-watched videos on YouTube (6,725 videos that were collectively viewed over 1 billion times), Vidmeter concludes: “In summary, we found that of the 6,725 most popular videos on YouTube, only 621 had been removed due to copyright requests. Views to the removed videos made up less than 6% of all recorded YouTube views.”

Specifically, Viacom’s removed files constituted only 2.37% of all views on YouTube during that time period.

2 Comments | copyright, Grokster inducement theory, legal, Viacom v. YouTube | Permalink
Posted by utubeblog

Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube: What backlash Viacom may face from YouTubers

March 15, 2007

News: In Viacom Suit Won’t Snuff Out YouTube, Catherine Holahan of BusinessWeek.com has an insightful assessment of Viacom’s copyright lawsuit against YouTube. The article distinguishes YouTube from Napster, and makes several points in YouTube’s favor.

One point that I was not aware of about Viacom’s lawsuit: Viacom has not asked for an order stopping YouTube’s operation (as apparently was the case in the RIAA’s lawsuit against Napster)–which Holahan suggests means the following: “One reason for this could be that Viacom, owner of youth brand MTV Networks as well as Comedy Central, may not want to anger its key demographic in the same way that the RIAA did when it began to sue users of peer-to-peer sites. Another reason, says Rutchik, is that the whole suit is simply a negotiating tactic to make Google more willing to pay Viacom for its content.”

Analysis: I don’t think we should read too much into Viacom’s language describing the scope of the permanent injunction it seeks against YouTube. It’s pretty generic. I do think Holahan’s suggestion, though, is on target: given YouTube’s popularity, any company that caused or asked for a shutdown of YouTube, even if only temporary, would face a huge, perhaps cataclysmic backlash among millions of YouTubers. I’m reminded of what happened in Brazil when a court ordered it shut down there due to a sex video of a Brazilian model. The Brazilian model Daniela Cicarelli faced so much animosity from fans that she tried to distance herself from the lawsuit. Ironically, Cicarelli works for Brazil MTV, which is owned by Viacom.

There’s already a movement now on YouTube to “Boycott Viacom.” I’m not sure how successfull it will be unless YouTube becomes truly at risk of losing the lawsuit.

2 Comments | copyright, DMCA safe harbor, Grokster inducement theory, Viacom v. YouTube | Permalink
Posted by utubeblog