Militant Geek Custom Shirts

As a self-admitted Google fanboy the Mountain View company’s ponderous response to Viacom’s allegations were a bit nerve racking. Of course, having had yet another outstanding quarter maybe the billion dollars Viacom was demanding for clips placed on YouTube didn’t seem like that big of deal. Of course I wouldn’t be happy about it but if that’s the way Larry and Sergey wanted to roll with an old media shake down I’d have to live with it.

However, a new update from Rob Hof seems to indicate that we’re going to get the courtroom smack down that we’ve been hoping for.

“Viacom’s complaint in this action challenges the careful balance established by Congress when it enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” the answer reads in part. “By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.”

The company also demands a jury trial, and it has hired the Chicago firm Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, which Google characterized as ace trial lawyers, in addition the Google’s frequent counsel, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Many people think a settlement is likely at some point. But given that no settlement negotiations are underway currently, according to Michael Kwun, Google’s managing counsel for litigation, Google apparently can use some good trial lawyers.

Why is a court case such a big deal? For one, this may be one of the biggest tests of the DMCA’s safe harbor provision. A precedent of this magnitude really needs to be created for the myriad of companies who’s business is dependent on that provision. Two, its good that the under employed legal industry can find work in this none litigious society that we live in….

Oh wait…

Tony Walsh, from the excellent Clickable Culture blog, has word that debate of infinitesimally ridiculously proportions has erupted in Second Life. The cause? Who has the true right to do a virtual world ‘Next Top Model’ competition. As Tony points out:

When I first heard of the “SL Next Top Model” competition underway in Second Life, I immediately searched the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office database for existing trademarks under the “Next Top Model” banner, given the prominence of the America’s Next Top Model TV series. Unsurprisingly, there are 4 trademarks logged in the database under that name for services including “providing entertainment information concerning television program via global computer network.” I’m no lawyer, but I think there’s a good chance that the unauthorized Second Life “Next Top Model” competition infringes on the real one.

That hasn’t stopped the intellectual fireworks from popping:

Ms. Hoyer declined comment at this time, complaining that it was too late an hour for an interview. I did, however, get a few -very staggered- remarks from her.

Jada Hoyer: and I did not attempt to highjack anything
Tenshi Vielle: Alright, then why is your event, under the same name, separated by two single tildes, registered after the original groups were formed?
Tenshi Vielle: After the original idea was formed, etc?
Jada Hoyer: the original idea was Tara Banks
Jada Hoyer: lol
Tenshi Vielle: mm-hmmm… but I’m talking the SL edition
Tenshi Vielle: Did you bother to ask permission of Ms. Banks to use her name?
Tenshi Vielle: Did you contact Bankable Productions?
Jada Hoyer: I better take this babyphat outfit off huh
Tenshi Vielle: If it’s on your SL body, you may as well, it’s direct copyright infringment.
Tenshi Vielle: I just can’t fathom… I heard through the grapevine that you are “prepared to fight this” … how are you planning on fighting for something that isn’t even yours? … that you didn’t bother to get permission of the original parties, to use their name and idea? Did you even ATTEMPT an email to them?

After that, Ms. Hoyer fell absolutely silent. I told her I would report her silence as a “decline to comment”. So, guys - you heard it - or didn’t hear it — Jada Hoyer declined to comment. She also, however, stated that I had to “come at” her “correct”, by which she meant that I must interview her in person. “What kind of reporter wouldn’t?” she asks. The kind that works in SL, honey.

Ms. Hoyer began pasting our IM conversation to her friends. How do I know this? She mistakenly pasted me another copy of our conversation. Brilliant move. “F*ck you,” is her parting shot.

Tony ends his piece by stating how rampant copyright infringement is within the world. He laments how it is only a matter of time before before the world gets Viacommed. We could only be so lucky.

If you only read the feed (RSS) version of militantgeek you may not have seen the little Google Reader widget that is embedded on the right hand side of the page. It keeps a list of all the stories that I tag that are geek worthy throughout the day that I may not have time to comment on at the moment. As yesterday developed it filled up with news about Viacom suing YouTube (through parent Google) for a billion dollars. From Mike Arrington’s TechCrunch coverage (who is quoting the actual lawsuit):

There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers, directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have invested to make possible this innovation and creativity.

After a great deal of unproductive negotiation, and remedial efforts by ourselves and other copyright holders, YouTube continues in its unlawful business model. Therefore, we must turn to the courts to prevent Google and YouTube from continuing to steal value from artists and to obtain compensation for the significant damage they have caused.

ValleyWag has an interesting take: sue back. If Summer Redstone (Viacom’s voracious vulture-in-chief) wants to wave his legal stick about do so in kind. We want to see the kind of knock-down, drag-em-out sword fight to end all sword fights (in the strictly platonic sense, of course). Its about time that somebody with cahones steps forward, DMCA Safe Harbor Provision in hand, and puts an end to calling lawyers when the revenue sharing deals aren’t to one’s liking.

Your move Google. You knew this was coming a month ago and you sure as hell should have had something prepared. Are you going to fight? Or are you going to make yourself a target for every content owner with an ambulance chaser on speed dial? Your call.