Russ VerSteeg 1

In March 2007, media giant Viacom brought a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube for “brazen” and “massive” copyright infringement, claiming the Google-owned online video-sharing website made around 160,000 Viacom-owned videos available to YouTube users without permission. Considering the legal and historical context from which the litigation arose, this Article briefly reviews the dynamic relationship between technology and copyright law over the years, as well as the principal legal theories that make up Viacom's complaint and YouTube's various defenses. The Article goes on to outline the interests of each entity with a stake in the action, including the plaintiff, the defendant, the creators of the copyrighted video content, and the public at large. The Article concludes with an exploration of possible legal outcomes in the event of actual litigation and an ensuing judgment by the court.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 43 (2007) | Download PDF

I. Introduction

This Article is about the Viacom v. YouTube litigation that was filed on March 13, 2007.2 It contains eleven short sections. Part II sets the stage, so to speak, commenting on copyright law and about the relationship between technology and copyright law in general. Part III takes a brief glimpse at a sampling of quotes from the media in order to provide an overview of the coverage the case has been getting. Part IV describes the players: Viacom, Google, and YouTube. Part V introduces substantive issues of copyright law and explains in general terms how those principles fit the particulars of Viacom's complaint. Part VI quotes several sections from Viacom's complaint and briefly explains the principal legal theories in the balance of the complaint in order to provide a specific understanding of Viacom's allegations against YouTube. Part VII summarizes YouTube's defenses. Part VIII considers the prospects for summary judgment. Part IX briefly examines some of the practical aspects of the technology involved as well as what YouTube can and cannot do both physically and electronically. Part X evaluates interest analysis.3 Part XI sails into the dangerous seas of outcome prediction. Some lawyers have already weighed in and others in the industry have speculated about how they think this case will be decided in the event that it is actually litigated and a court reaches a judgment.4