Swindled

Viacom, I think it's time that you invest in some new legal advisers. This lawsuit against YouTube is going to get you nothing except for paying out the ass in wasted legal fees. If your legal advisers were worth the money you pay them then you would realize that there are already two cases that have set a precedent for systems which can be used for both non-infringing and infringing copyrighted material. Hell, one of those cases has happened within the last four years! Haven't you read anything about the case against Grokster? That program was even design for the purpose of illegal file sharing, and it was still spared the chopping block because of the Sony Rule of 1984. An application that can be used for both infringing and non-infringing uses may not be held as a liable party for the copyright infringement of the people who use the program. In this particular case with YouTube, the service is clearly designed for a non-infringing purpose and is largely used as such. I would say put money on the fact that a higher percentage of what is posted to YouTube is non-infringing than is infringing. Grokster certainly couldn't boast that, but MGM still wasn't able to get them held liable because of the previous precedent which was set in 1984. You're claim regarding the Digital Copyright Millennium Act is a moot point as well, as Grokster was brought to court for this issue after the Act was put into place. I think it's safe to say that your legal advisers are swindling you if they're telling you that there's a chance in hell that you'll win this case. No, you're just going to look like the giant asshole of broadcasting networks that can't pull it's head out of it's ass and realize that the world around you is changing more rapidly than you're willing to adapt.

Oh yeah, and I still know all about the ONE campaign...