But intellectual property lawyer Cohen said he wasn't sure if other media companies would be eager to sue Google and YouTube, which some jokingly refer to as "GooTube. You're not going to stop advancement," Cohen said. YouTube's massive reach, particularly with younger consumers, presents a unique problem for media firms.
Even though media giants obviously would like to receive revenue from videos posted on video-sharing sites, such as YouTube, getting a video seen on YouTube can lead to increased exposure. Still, the big media companies are also investing heavily in their own online video sites and are partnering with other video upstarts. Viacom, for example, has purchased iFilm and Atom Entertainment in the past two years and earlier this month announced a deal to allow YouTube competitor Joost to host videos from Viacom-owned networks.
To that end, Forrester's McQuivey said that the lawsuit against Google and YouTube could benefit other smaller online video firms.
But it was a shame that Viacom and Google couldn't agree on a deal without litigation, he added. We are going to tie up the exciting revolution of consumer video in the courts," he said.
Google said, however, that it did not expect the lawsuit to affect YouTube's business. One lawyer suggested that Viacom's suit is just a tough negotiating tactic and that ultimately, Viacom, Google and YouTube would resolve their issues out of court.
It's always risky and at the very least it would be time-consuming and expensive. My guess is that they probably will settle out of court," Gurwin added. Viacom, which has been suing Google over alleged copyright violations at its YouTube unit since , has settled out of court, the two companies announced today.
YouTube copyright litigation. This settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.
But no money traded hands in the settlement, according to people familiar with the transaction. Google had won a significant victory against Viacom in , when U. Viacom appealed that decision, but a federal appeals court kicked the case back down to Stanton again, who repeated his ruling in Viacom appealed that ruling, and the two companies were scheduled to appear in court again next Monday.
Seven years ago, the copyright lawsuit looked like it would have major implications for the way the Web worked. But by now the suit had become an asterisk, because in many ways the core issues have been settled by both the courts and the market. Like many other media companies, Viacom had originally objected to the fact that lots of its content appeared on YouTube without its permission.
Dauman Jr. Viacom responded that the non-compete only applied during the term of the contract period and also fell within a statutory exception for trade secrets.
If Viacom used an identical agreement to hire at-will employees, the Court would easily conclude that the covenant was unlawful, particularly given its exceedingly broad definition of confidential information. However, this case concerns a fixed-term contract, and Netflix has presented no evidence to show that fixed-term contracts are illegal under California law.
The judge concludes that Viacom has standing to pursue its legal action as the result of a loss of a contractual right. Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day.
0コメント