Wherever I am reading articles, it’s about lawsuits from company 1 vs company 2
Today it’s Viacom against YouTube (Google). Viacom had a lawsuit running
against YouTube for allowing broadcasts of unlicensed clips and music materials.
In 2007 Viacom filed for lawsuit agains YouTube. Since then the lawsuit has…

been driven thru available instances. In 2010 a district court judge from New York has decided that YouTube has done everything possible to prohibit publication of unlicensed material (one result of this might be the “This video isn’t available in your country” thingy). Viacom still thinks that YouTube has still looked at the other side while private users have uploaded unlicesned material in masses. Viacom further says that YouTube did so to fill it’s site with content.

Annotation from my point of view: Okay, so Viacom is sueing YouTube for having allowed illegal uploads to fill their site. But Viacom isn’t a bad boy filling it’s money pockets with a ridiculously high claim for damages (here US$1 billion!)?
How did Viacom calculate this high claim anyways?

However the appeals court has now discarded the verdict from New York of 2010. The verdict fact sheet states that YouTube might have knon of the law violations.

So let’s see what will come out lately. I would fully understand if YouTube would discard ALL videos that have to do with Viacom and let Viacom build up a serverfarm like Google did to present the clients their content.

I doubt that Viacom could manage such a complex IT surrounding and furthermore: People always avoid places with bad reputation. And the RIAA/MPAA managed to give many companies a bad reputation for filing such really ill-minded lawsuits agains sites that publicate videos for advertising purposes (that’s what I call this), such as YouTube or other video/music portals.

Dear RIAA/MPAA, how do you think, people are buying your licensed music/videos? How has it been in the late 20th century? Have you EVER watched your customers’ behaviours? You can’t be serious to say, that youTube did not bring you the big revenues you always make! You’d better reconsider the actions your member “Viacom” is currently doing. It’s for your own good as people don’t want to be forced to where to get their information about your new-released stuff. And in the late 20th century, th exchange of music tapes / video tapes has also been a way to share music. There it seemed completely okay for you. People who liked the stuff bought the corresponding (video)tape for theirselves. Now you say it’s a fact that a digital copy does not have to deal with the quality loss as tapes then had to. But that’s TS! An MP3 doesn’t sound as good as the original!