YouTube (owned by Google) is being sued by Viacom for alleged copyright infringement. Image from Flickr.

This morning, a New York Federal Court judge released hundreds of thousands of pages (PDF) of documents related to the three-year-old Viacom v. YouTube lawsuit. Viacom is the owner of a huge variety of media outlets, including Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central, MTV and BET. Viacom is suing Google – specifically, Google’s YouTube property – over alleged copyright infringements. At the basis of this lawsuit is the 1996 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There have been other cases testing the DMCA, but the Viacom vs. YouTube/Google case is the largest, asking for more than $1 billion worth of fast cash for Viacom.

The Viacom allegations against YouTube

Filed on March 13, 2007, the Viacom lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleged copyright infringement. In the released documents, Viacom claims that YouTube engaged in “massive intentional copyright infringement” by making available over 100,000 “unauthorized” clips of Viacom-owned materials and taking no actions to remove or block copyrighted information from YouTube.

Google’s defense of YouTube

Google has defended YouTube against Viacom’s allegations in several ways. First, Google claims that Viacom has taken many of the YouTube e-mails included in the court documents out of context. As reported by CNet, Viacom’s complaint omitted the word “stop” from an e-mail a YouTube founder sent saying “…please stop putting stolen videos on the site.” Google also provides e-mails from 2005 in which YouTube’s founders outline that “video must be about you, must be appropriate for all audiences, cannot contain contact information, no copyrighted material.”

In the defense of YouTube against Viacom, YouTube has also alleged that Viacom secretly uploaded thousands of hours of video content at the same time they were complaining about that content’s presence on YouTube.

Viacom retaliation for YouTube purchase attempt?

CNBC has reported that Viacom’s lawsuit may be about more than just copyright protection. YouTube and Google claim that Viacom had tried to purchase YouTube before Google did, and then offered to partner with Google to purchase YouTube – using cash advance loans from both Viacom and Google to invest in YouTube. When both of these efforts failed, YouTube alleges, Viacom filed the lawsuit in retaliation.

YouTube protected by Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

The lawsuit between Viacom and Google/YouTube is based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This law was passed in 1998 and conforms to treaties the United States made with the World Intellectual Property Organization. In short, the act protects service providers (such as YouTube) from copyright infringement lawsuits if they remove material when a copyright claim is made by the media owners. Viacom is claiming that while YouTube did remove copyrighted material when asked, YouTube did not take appropriate actions to prevent the copyrighted material from ever being posted.

The implications of Viacom v. YouTube

In the end, no matter how many allegations Google and Viacom make against one another, the real matter at hand is if YouTube violated the DMCA. While YouTube’s terms of service have always included a prohibition against copyrighted content, the judge must rule if YouTube took actions that violated Viacom’s copyright. If YouTube is found guilty, it could have wide-ranging implications for the availability of commercially copyrighted content on the web.

Andrea Parrish and Peter Geyer. Image from Flickr.

With the amount of cash people spend on weddings nowadays (average in U.S. is $28,000), it’s practically impossible to pull it off without involving a personal loan, either on the part of the parents or the couple. It’s no wonder some people would rather just elope. But couples are coming up with creative ways to pay for all of the food, drink and attire that are mandatory for celebrating a romantic union in style.

When I first heard about the couple in Spokane, Wash., who are planning to pay for their wedding by recycling aluminum, I thought “What a cool idea!” However, I had my doubts about whether they could pull it off. Oh, me of little faith.

Aluminum explosion

The story of the crazy couple trying to collect 400,000 aluminum cans to raise just $3,800 (obviously, they want a small wedding) first was featured on Offbeat Bride, a popular web site that features not-so-traditional weddings. Fast-forward to just one week later, and the story is featured in the Spokane newspaper, and according to the couple’s web site, weddingcans.com, after it ran on a Spokane TV news station, the Associated Press got ahold of it.

The video of the couple “with a can-do attitude” ran in states all the way across the country, including Maryland and New Jersey. And now they’ve made international news; The Globe and Mail in Canada picked up the video. But here’s the kicker, folks: the YouTube video. Think of how many unsuspecting videos have gone viral. And remember that guy who started with a paper clip and ended up with a house? Once you factor in harnessing the power of the Internet, paying for a wedding with aluminum cans doesn’t sound crazy at all. It sounds downright doable.

In fact, considering that right now their story has made it to the front page of Yahoo.com, it sounds downright done.

Want to help their cause?

The couple says it will come to you to pick up cans — if you live nearby. However, people in New Jersey and Maryland can help, too. Wedding Cans, the web site, says:

Not in the area? Please consider collecting the cans in your office, classroom, or kitchen. Find a local recycling center, and turn them in. Take the cash, take yourself out for a coffee or draft beer, and perhaps kick a bit of what’s left over our way.

After  you collect money for your cans, go to weddingcans.com and scroll down to the bottom, there’s a shiny, golden “donate” button. Click on that, and it’ll let you deposit money in their PayPal account. I like the way they put it on their web site: “Saving the environment and throwing a killer party… what could be better?”