In this corner, applying rouge to its nipples and straightening its altogether too-small unitard while it scratches its hairy crack with a gnarled claw, filing a $1 billion lawsuit over copyright violations after claiming 160,000 unauthorized video clips were displayed by the defendant, proprietor of MTV, BET, Comedy Central, VH1, and Nickelodeon, the silicon sandbagger... Vi-a-commmmmm. Faceless Viacom statement-maker, do you have anything to say?
"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google. YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws."
And in this corner, brash newcomer, "popular internet video-sharing site," the young pup bought by proud papa Google for $1.76 billion in November 2006, strutting toward the conference ring to the blare of Loverboy's "Loving Every Minute Of It," the screen stream scream... YouuuuuuuuuTuuuuuuuuube. YouTube... "exploiting?" "Avoid taking proactive steps?" "Illegal?" "Curtail?" How do you react to these claims?
"Uh, um, any news is good news, I guess?"
Alright, I want a totally dirty and malicious fight. Use of foreign objects is recommended. As is name-calling. We are in the attitude era now; we don't want any backyard wrestling here. It should all be no botched clubbering from here on out. We want double-juicing and loads of blood! Hell, we really just want you to go away, but we know that is not going to happen so BRING THE NOISE, BRING THE FUNK, FILE YOUR LAWSUITS, AND COVER YOUR JUNK! If you thought Blur vs. Oasis, Herzog vs. Kinski, Biggie vs. Tupac, and Crest vs. Colgate were intense beefs, you obviously have not been witness to our beloved omnigeomorpheologicorps (copyright Tiny Mix Tapes, March 2007; it basically means "big fat companies") whipping out their dicks and throwing around figures in the billions.
Is this just a overblown tactic by Viacom to improve any current revenue-sharing agreements? Is YouTube being too cavalier with its brash "we're here, we're showing your videos, get used to it" stance? Did Google take on a potentially dangerous legal pain-in-the-ass when it acquired YouTube? Should open access to content and information be everyday practice, or should owners of material displayed on YouTube be in control of their content and be compensated for letting it be showed? Will the larger media companies take Google's/YouTube's lack of respect and goodwill as a slap in the face and attempt to cut the internet search czar down? Bring on the canned heat! LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!*
* "Let's Get Ready To Rumble" ("LGRTR") is a registered trademark of Michael Buffer, "The Voice of Champions," and The Buffer Partnership. "LGRTR" is a "clarion call to pure integrity of the competitive spirit" and garners an "adrenaline boosting, positive will to win attitude!" Any use of Mr. Buffer's famous rendition of his copyrighted "Let's Get Ready To Rumble" recording or unauthorized use of the "Let's Get Ready To Rumble," "Get Ready To Rumble," "Ready To Rumble," servicemarked phrases and any paraphrasing of these marks (including "Get Ready To Crumble," "Are You Ready To Rumble," "Let's Get Ready to Mumble," "I'm Not Quite Yet Ready To Stumble," "Get Ready for Mr. Stumble Von Bumble!" etc.) will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and will be struck down with a force that will continue for eternity.
