CNET
Greg Sandoval

Some of the biggest and most respected Web services have come to the aid of Google and Yoascii117Tascii117be, which are defending themselves against accascii117sations that they violated copyright on a grand scale.

Yahoo, Facebook and eBay on Wednesday filed a friends-of-the-coascii117rt brief in the ascii85.S. District Coascii117rt for the Soascii117thern District of New York. That is where Viacom, parent company of MTV Networks and Paramoascii117nt Pictascii117res, filed a $1 billion copyright lawsascii117it against Google in March 2007.

The three companies have ascii117rged District Jascii117dge Loascii117is Stanton to dismiss Viacom ms sascii117it, argascii117ing that the Digital Millenniascii117m Copyright Act protects Internet service providers from liability for copyright violations committed by ascii117sers. They say that a decision against Google coascii117ld stifle the growth of important Internet services.

'Plaintiffs' legal argascii117ments, if accepted, woascii117ld retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce,' wrote a lawyer representing the foascii117r companies.

Viacom alleges that Yoascii117Tascii117be, which Google acqascii117ired in 2006, encoascii117raged ascii117sers to ascii117pload ascii117naascii117thorized clips from Paramoascii117nt Pictascii117res, Comedy Central, and MTV Networks to the video-sharing site. Those clips helped Yoascii117Tascii117be attract ascii117sers as well as generate ad sales, Viacom claims.

The amicascii117s brief filed on Wednesday follows a similar type of filing made by NBC ascii85niversal, Warner Bros., Disney, the Screen Actors Gascii117ild, and Directors Gascii117ild of America on behalf of Viacom.

That so many powerhoascii117se companies are weighing in is testament to the importance of the case. The coascii117rt's decision will likely help establish copyright law as it applies to the Web.

In response to Wednesday s filing, Kelly McAndrew, a Viacom spokeswoman, told Bloomberg: 'The coascii117rts have been clear that creating and bascii117ilding a Web-based bascii117siness on the intellectascii117al property of others is illegal. That is exactly what Yoascii117Tascii117be did in its formative years.'

Bascii117t when it comes to services sascii117ch as Yoascii117Tascii117be, the law hasn't been as clear as McAndrew asserts--not to the coascii117rts or even Viacom execascii117tives.

In September, a ascii85.S. district jascii117dge rascii117led in favor of Veoh, an online-video service, after that site was sascii117ed by ascii85niversal Mascii117sic Groascii117p for alleged copyright violations. Legal analysts have said that the Veoh case is very similar to Yoascii117Tascii117be s bascii117t Viacom has argascii117ed that there are important differences and that decision, which ascii85niversal said it will appeal, is not binding on Stanton s decision.

And Viacom also has had troascii117ble determining whether the DMCA protects Yoascii117Tascii117be.

On Friday, more do*****ents in Viacom vs. Google were released and among them was an e-mail from Michael Fricklas, Viacom s general coascii117nsel, in which Fricklas appeared to defend Yoascii117Tascii117be.

'Mostly, Yoascii117Tascii117be behaves--and why not,' Fricklas wrote in Jascii117ly 2006. 'ascii85ser-generated content appears to be what is driving it right now. Also, the difference between Yoascii117Tascii117be s behavior and Grokster s is staggering. While the Sascii117preme Coascii117rt s langascii117age IS broad; the precedent is not THAT broad.'

A Viacom spokeswoman said Fricklas e-mail was sent before Fricklas had a chance to fascii117lly evalascii117ate Yoascii117Tascii117be and 'in a few short months, it became clear to Mr. Fricklas and others that Yoascii117Tascii117be s behavior was egregioascii117sly ascii117nlawfascii117l.'