Editing Viacom (2005–2019) (section)

==Copyright complaints against YouTube==
{{Main|Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.}}
In February 2007, Viacom sent upwards of 100,000 [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] takedown notices to the video-sharing site [[YouTube]]. Of the 100,000 notices, approximately 60–70 non-infringing videos were removed under the auspices of copyright infringement.<ref name="DMCA">[https://www.foxnews.com/story/media-companies-blast-youtube-for-anti-piracy-policy Media Companies Blast YouTube for Anti-Piracy Policy] . Foxnews.com (February 19, 2007). Retrieved July 13, 2011.</ref>

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a US$1&nbsp;billion legal claim (''[[Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.]]'') against [[Google]] and YouTube alleging massive [[copyright infringement]], alleging that users frequently uploaded copyrighted material to YouTube—enough to cause a hit in revenue for Viacom and a gain in advertisement revenue for YouTube.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf |title=United States District Court for the Southern District of New York – ''Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.''| work=Wall Street Journal| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070315180355/http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf| archive-date=March 15, 2007| url-status=live}}</ref> The complaint contended that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's programming were made available on YouTube and that these clips had collectively been viewed more than 1.5&nbsp;billion times.

In July 2008, the case generated controversy when District Judge [[Louis Stanton]] ruled that YouTube was required to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who had ever watched videos on the site.<ref name=privacy_bbc>{{Cite news | title = Google Must Divulge YouTube Log | date = July 3, 2008 |publisher=BBC News  | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm}}</ref> Judge Stanton rejected Viacom's request for YouTube to hand over the [[source code]] of its [[search engine (computing)|search engine]] system, saying that the code was a [[trade secret]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube |last=Helft |first=Miguel |newspaper=New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/technology/04youtube.html |date=July 4, 2008 }}</ref>
Google and Viacom later agreed to allow Google to anonymize all the data before handing it over to Viacom.<ref name=privacy_guardian>{{Cite news|title=Google and Viacom reach deal over YouTube user data |last=Sweeney |first=Mark |newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia |date=July 15, 2008 |location=London}}</ref>

On June 23, 2010, Judge Stanton ruled in Google's favor in a motion for [[summary judgment]], holding that Google was protected by provisions of the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], notwithstanding evidence of intentional copyright infringement. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.<ref>{{Cite news| title = US judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube |author=Lefkow, Chris|agency=AFP  | url = https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_AfErLSMMGD417l8aR0CYib0aNQ| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100626124810/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_AfErLSMMGD417l8aR0CYib0aNQ| url-status = dead| archive-date = June 26, 2010|access-date=June 24, 2010 | date=June 23, 2010}}</ref>

On April 5, 2012, the ruling was overturned by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. |court=2d Cir. |date=April 5, 2012 |url=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/doc/10-3270_10-3342_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/hilite/ |access-date=May 3, 2013 |archive-date=January 14, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130114151646/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/doc/10-3270_10-3342_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/hilite/ |url-status=dead }} {{Cite web |url=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/doc/10-3270_10-3342_opn.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=April 27, 2013 |archive-date=January 14, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130114151646/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e4374f0f-1919-4bbf-a411-69c963dc238d/5/doc/10-3270_10-3342_opn.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref> Writing for a two-judge panel (because Judge [[Roger Miner]] had died while the trial was pending) of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], Judge [[José A. Cabranes]] concluded that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website". [[Eric Goldman]], a professor at the [[Santa Clara University School of Law]], expressed concern that the ruling would negatively affect [[Startup company|startup]]s, by making them "more hair-trigger on taking down news or content, for fear that failure to do so will be held against them by content providers".<ref name=stempel>{{cite news |title=Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-google-viacom-idUSBRE8340RY20120405 |newspaper=Reuters|date=5 April 2012 |author=Jonathan Stempel |author2=Yinka Adegoke |access-date=October 17, 2013}}</ref>

On April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another order granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube.<ref name=April18SJOrder>{{cite web|title=Granting Defendant YouTube's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Entering Judgement that Defendants are Protected by the Safe-Harbor Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) from all of Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement Claims.|url=https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--07-cv-02103/Viacom_International_Inc_et_al_v_Youtube_Inc_et_al/452/|publisher=Docket Alarm, Inc.|access-date=May 9, 2013|date=April 18, 2013}}</ref> An appeal was begun, but the week before the parties were to appear in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a settlement was announced, and it was reported that no money changed hands.<ref name=Reuters20140318>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idUSBREA2H11220140318|date=March 18, 2014|last=Stempel|first=Jonathan|publisher=Reuters|title=Google, Viacom settle landmark YouTube lawsuit}}</ref>
Viacom and its alternative name B_Viacom have since taken to removing videos or blocked countries themselves.