Viacom vs. Google

On the Wired Blog Network a july 2nd, 2008 report on Judge's order for Google to give user histories to Viacom, Ryan Singel states that "Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement". Another giant lawsuit against a computer mega-company should not come with much surprise to anyone. When any company is dealing with money and netting profits in the billion dollar range, the right person is going to throw up a lawsuit if they find just a hair in their food so to speak. Hendrickson vs. ebay in 2001, which the little man Hendrickson lost serves as just one example. Yet in the case at present time Viacom, another billion dollar company sporting networks such as MTV, Commedy Central, Nickelodean, Dream Works and Paramount; a television and hollywood giant is fighting against Google's Utube for copyright infringement and may have a more favorable outcome than did Hendrickson. I say that because they are both huge companies with huge wallets to pay the best lawyers with, Hendrickson is at worst on a level playing field.
How much responsibility should Google carry for its users' illegal activity of uploading copyrighted material? The answer I believe lies in the question of what part is Google playing in it? They give the forum, their housing the copyright infringement obviously. Yet are they harboring/protecting the illegal? I think that would be out of line to say that under the facts that Google is not dependant upon, financially hinged by, nor counting on copyright infringement to make up the whole of its business. They are not professional exploiters as are their opponents. To clarify this look at how videos are listed on Utube; not as advertisements or posted as their favorites as if they are trying to propagate particular videos that come their way. They list by most popular, videos being watched right now, etc... They are put in order essentially by the users and contain as much educational, and clean video clips as those with more adult content. You choose what to watch. On the other hand Viacom promotes everything they display, its their agenda (even if it is crafted towards popular consensus). That point in itself places my empathy with Google. Google is serving the pubic. Viacom is serving through exploitation of sexual innuendos almost solely in the case of MTV. Who's the good guy here? Google in my opinion, a legitimate business.
Users of Youtube should be more responsible than Google for true copyright infringement. After all Google is following the laws set forth by a copy and take down procedure of any complaints concerning infringement. DMCA states that they need not monitor for such because of the notice and take down policy. Yet if their persists an issue I would that Google hand over user information for the individual users to be pursued, which would seem like a reasonable compromise and one that should be allowed for investigation of illegal activities. Can Google count on the court to rule such a reasonable way? Probably not. In the meantime Google should not have to abide by any unwritten law.
The only trouble with expediting the liability of this issue upon individual users is that it is simply not accepted by public opinion. If it were companies like Naptser would not have been so popular. People around the world are prone to unabashed copyright infringement from, uploading to downloading to unauthorized copying and sales. It is unlikely that people will feel much differently about this subject. Yet it is also unlikely that there will not be harder and harder crackdowns on such technical robberies as they may be called. It would make much sense if new legislation must be set forth from this trial outcome that it would target larger repeat abusers of copyright infringements, to pardon small timers, and to allow Companies such as Google the freedom to continue serving the public without bringing in the overly complicated and restrictive legislation that are found in the real world. We want to preserve the wild west of the Internet in order to preserve the opportunities that come with it, such as our use of Youtube.