In a statement from Amazon, Brad Beale, director of video content acquisition for Amazon, said, “Over the last year we have received fantastic customer feedback about Prime Instant Video. We are constantly working to improve the service by adding the shows that our customers enjoy the most. This deal with Viacom brings Prime customers and Kindle Fire users thousands of comedies, kids’ shows, reality TV and much more from some of the best cable networks available. We now offer more than 15,000 movies and TV shows in Prime Instant Videos and are working hard to add even more great content.”

Members of Amazon Prime will be able to enjoy Viacom’s offerings, which include such cultural fascinations like Jersey Shore and SpongeBob SquarePants, on a number of devices, including Amazon’s jewel, the Kindle Fire.

Amazingly, the statement released from Amazon did not recommend any suitable prophylactics required to safely stream Jersey Shore to your Kindle Fire.

Just ask video game developers Naughty Dog, who posted the trailer to their upcoming game, The Last of Us, on YouTube. Shortly after it appeared, it was taken down thanks to a copyright claim from Viacom. Their issue? Even though they didn’t make, produce, advise or star in The Last of Us, because the trailer in question was first shown during the VGA Awards show, which aired on Viacom-owned SpikeTV, Viacom’s claim was temporarily upheld.

Needless to say, such an overzealous application of copyright law, Viacom’s move got the Internet in a tizzy, including Reddit and Kotaku. According to the latter publication, the trailer, which was posted on Naughty Dog’s official YouTube page for the game in question, has been restored. The difference between the pulled on and the live version? The currently-live version mentions the VGAs in its title.

The trailer in question:

Making this situation even worse, SOPA hasn’t even been made into a law yet, so the fear is, scenarios where Viacom overvalues their position as a video game distributor will become commonplace if SOPA survives the legislative process.

Viacom did not make the video game, nor did they create the trailer, but because it was first shown on one of the many channels they own, they have a legal claim to content from an intellectual property that isn’t even theirs? And this is something that will improve once SOPA passes? Forgive me for scoffing at such a ridiculous idea.

In the future, perhaps Sony, Naughty Dog’s parent company, should no longer show first-run trailers on any Viacom-owned channels, even if it is for a video game award show. If Viacom is going to act obstinate about IP that doesn’t even belong to them, they should be blocked from receiving such exclusive content. Fair’s fair.

First, the laughable video:

Apparently, the good people who made this video aren’t trying to monetize it, so it’s OK for YouTube to have it. Ah, hypocrisy at its finest.

As for the video itself, as TechDirt so eloquently pointed out, it’s essentially a “support SOPA or Spongebob dies” approach, and it stinks of hyperbole and a “woe is our company because there’s no SOPA to protect it” approach. Don’t forget about the “we need more of your money, therefore, SOPA is right” approach, either, because it’s definitely available in the video.

It should be noted that Viacom’s view on piracy is not in dispute here. If you get caught downloading a movie you haven’t paid for, you should have to pay the consequences. The problem is, SOPA is not the way to go about it because it gives entirely too much power to the entertainment industry, which has been the major sticking point against SOPA all along.

Ironically enough, Viacom’s quarterly financial report has also been released, and after watching their sob story video, you’d think the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yeah, about that. A quick look at the document’s title reveals a much different outlook than the one the video presents:

VIACOM REPORTS DOUBLE-DIGIT GROWTH FOR FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL-YEAR FISCAL 2011

But, but… didn’t the video essentially plead for people to keep consuming Viacom’s products in such a manner that the money keeps on flowing in, saving the entire Viacom staff from certain doom? So is this more hypocrisy or just an outright lie? Furthermore, when does Viacom get held to the fire for refusing to adapt the technology available? Or, as TechDirt put it:

Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that’s the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn’t do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.

It should be noted that full episodes of VH1′s amazing lineup of reality programs are available at the VH1 website, but you wouldn’t know that if you visited Viacom. If you want to actually combat episodic piracy, why not go out of your way to promote the fact these very same episodes are available for free on the website of a property you own instead of making videos that further turn public opinion against you?

Nowhere on Viacom’s site is that knowledge gained. In fact, it was Google that let me know these episodes are available, but yet, it’s a lack of SOPA that causes people to download Viacom’s IP and not a lack promotion? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

In case you’ve forgotten, when YouTube started its skyrocket ascent, Viacom was displeased with their content being available — for free — on YouTube’s servers, and so, they filed suit to have their content removed. That is an understandable, if not archaic position, one that becomes even more obtuse when you consider YouTube does indeed have a sufficient advertising model in place.

Because, let’s face it, Viacom’s position is all about getting paid when people view their content.

Digression aside, in 2010, a judge ruled that YouTube was given “safe harbor” protection, which essentially means as long as YouTube removes the offending content, it’s not YouTube’s fault if one of their users is responsible for uploading it, which makes perfect sense in the rational world. Unfortunately, that’s not the world Viacom resides in. No, being a corporate juggernaut, Viacom’s concern is for one thing and one thing only: profit.

Because of that, Viacom is working their asses off in an effort to find an appeals judge who agrees with them, and so, here we go again with the appeals process, one that says, “please, judge, make YouTube liable so we can have some of their money.” A snippet from PaidContent.org details Viacom’s position quite nicely:

What do Viacom and the other plaintiffs want?

Viacom wants the panel to declare that the judge made an error when he stated that the safe harbor protection applies to YouTube. According to lawyers from Jenner & Block, YouTube forfeited its right to the safe harbor because it did not make an honest effort to stop the clips from being uploaded and instead focused on growing its online video business at the expense of content owners.

Viacom is also hoping that the influential Second Circuit will provide a precedent that curtails the scope of safe harbors in general. It believes that the 1998 law has become too expansive…

Apparently, Viacom doesn’t know, or doesn’t care about the amount of content that’s uploaded to YouTube on daily basis. Or maybe Viacom thinks YouTube should be capable of seamlessly inspecting every aspect of the 48 hours worth of video that’s uploaded on a minute-by-minute basis, instead of reacting to it after a complaint has been filed.

Or, maybe Viacom just wants some of that YouTube money.

It’s funny, YouTube is a perfectly acceptable platform for Viacom to take advantage of when they release movies trailers, nor do they seem to mind when Internet properties like ClevverTV exploit Viacom properties for pageviews, like so:

For what it’s worth, Clevver is a property that aims to keep teens hip and informed, and unless they are owned by Viacom, a distinct possibility, but it’s not indicated anywhere on Clevver’s about pages, Viacom’s stance appears hypocritical.

Apparently, it’s fine to promote their products in the form of trailers and television previews, just don’t upload video from properties Viacom makes money from. It’s also OK if the Clevver brand establishes its popularity via Viacom-owned trailers and other promotional content, however, if they upload a non-promotional clip from MTV’s Teen Wolf, then Viacom wants YouTube to be liable.

Does that make even make sense? To Viacom’s legal team, apparently so. Is it YouTube’s fault if these videos exist, even though no one has apparently filed the appropriate infringement notice?

One quick reminder: YouTube already won this case once, with a court deciding last year that the site’s protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Fresh papers are circulating only because Viacom decided to appeal the decision.

Otherwise, we’d just like to let everyone know that we’re not going to quote too extensively from the long, long “brief.”  Both YouTube and Viacom seem to be past introducing much in the way of new evidence and/or new arguments at this point.

So here’s the simple conclusion at the end of the document: “YouTube, which has pioneered efforts to protect copyright while maintaining an open environment for creative, political, and personal expression, is exactly the kind of service that Section 512(c) was enacted to protect.  The district court’s judgment should be affirmed.”

Viacom-v-YouTube-Google-2d-Cir-brief-

Viacom responded by telling Eriq Gardner (who was the first person to publish Google’s legal brief), “Under the DMCA, content owners and systems operators share responsibility for the protection of copyrighted content online.  It was never intended to absolve companies like YouTube from liability for building a business by deliberately infringing others’ creative works.  We look forward to the review of this case by the court of appeals, and are confident that it will vindicate the rights of content creators.”

Let’s start with a quick rundown of the content deal.  Episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report will once again become available on Hulu the day after they air.  Meanwhile, Hulu Plus users will get access to episodes of Hot in Cleveland, Jersey Shore, and Tosh.0 21 days after they air, along with 2,000 episodes of older shows like Chappelle’s Show, The Hills, and Reno 911.

Rumors indicate Hulu will pay Viacom at least $40 million for all this, although no financial details were disclosed.

As for what Kilar had to say, he indicated that Hulu Plus has been successful, writing in an official blog post, "Our subscriber count will pass 1 million this year, to our knowledge the fastest start of any online video subscription service.  In the fall, we expect Hulu Plus as a business will have a revenue run rate north of $200 million."

Then Kilar addressed the subject of Hulu versus traditional TV.  He wrote, "Based on metrics from Nielsen/IAG, Hulu’s video advertising service is roughly 2x as effective as traditional TV video advertising services."

So, tackling the idea of having to pay for content (and perhaps angering network execs), Kilar concluded, "Our conviction remains that if we respect the customer and innovate effectively, we can pay content owners more from the ad side of the business than anyone else’s ad service can do (be that live/linear consumption or DVR viewing)."

Sam Schechner wrote this morning, "The New York-based owner of MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures is expected as early as Friday to file its appeal of the June decision with the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  To add firepower to its case, Viacom has brought in former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson to argue."

This is almost sure to get messy.  During the first go-round, lots of documents surfaced that made both sides look bad.  A few more may have been discovered by now, and in any event, both sides are bound to make every effort to promote their stance.

A Google representative already stated, "We regret that Viacom continues to drag out this case.  The court here, like every other court to have considered the issue, correctly ruled that the law protects online services like YouTube, which remove content when notified by the copyright holder that it is unauthorized.  We will strongly defend the court’s decision on appeal."

Regardless of how this plays out, though, we’ll probably hear still more about the YouTube-Viacom conflict at a later date due to yet another appeal.

One interesting financial note: Google spent $100 million defending itself the first time around.

"We’re extremely gratified by this decision and the now established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are immune from liability when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them protect their rights online," said Google Vice President & General Counsel Kent Walker.

He went on to call it an important victory not just for Google, but for billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. That victory isn’t quite sealed just yet though.

Viacom has filed for appeal. The company said from the beginning that it would do so, but now the filing is in and the battle wages on. Peter Kafka at MediaMemo has the document:

The battle between YouTube and Viacom has been going on for over three years. More on its history can be found here.

Other companies like Disney, NBC, and Warner Brothers have sided with Viacom in the past.

Much as Disney, NBC, and Warner Bros. (along with 11 other organizations) did several weeks ago, the four companies showed their support by filing an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, so this isn’t just a matter of everyone trying to grab headlines in the hope a judge will be swayed by one.

Also, in the brief, eBay, Facebook, IAC, and Yahoo argued that much more than the fate of a single video-sharing site is at stake, stating, "Plaintiffs’ legal arguments, if accepted, would retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce."

Of course, as we noted last time, judges aren’t supposed to put legal decisions to a vote, and a lot of lawyers have probably already made these points in court.

Still, the YouTube-Viacom lawsuit – which was a huge deal even before this month’s developments – is starting to turn into a legal showdown of epic proportions as more and more parties become involved.

Hat tip goes to Don Jeffrey and David Glovin.

Here’s the full list of Viacom’s new supporters: the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, the Association of American Publishers, BMI, the Center for the Rule of Law, Disney, the Institute for Policy Innovation, the Media Institute, NBC, the Picture Archive Council of America, Professional Photographers of America, Rosetta Stone, SESAC, Warner Bros., and Zuffa.

As for what they had to say, their amicus curiae brief made three arguments: "Congress enacted the DMCA to ensure vigorous copyright protection for digital works," "The Court should not permit service providers that intentionally encourage infringement to hide behind Section 512," and "The ‘right and ability to control’ must be construed in a manner consistent with the meaning given that term in the common law."

Of course, judges aren’t supposed to put matters to a vote, and Viacom’s own lawyers have probably voiced these points a hundred times, so it’s possible that this development will have no real effect.

Still, it’s a bit startling to see that YouTube’s made so many powerful enemies, and even if Viacom loses this lawsuit, it’s not hard to imagine that the coalition would choose to go after YouTube in some other way, putting it in legal jeopardy for years.