Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.

Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom's suit threatens our way of life... pretty much. From the Associated Press:

A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.

Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.

The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

It's sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.

In Google's corner are Wilson Sonsini, Mayer Brown, and Bartlit Beck. In Viacom's corner are Jenner & Block and Shearman & Sterling.

Google vows not to settle, saying it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Let the law firms rejoice!

Google: Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom [Associated Press]
Google's Answer To Complaint [PDF] [IP Democracy via Paid Content]
Google vows to keep fighting Viacom [Business Week]
Google Case Spells Windfall For Lawyers [Forbes]

Earlier: Coming Attractions: Viacom - YouTube - Google Smackdown

This was widely predicted as a consequence of Google's acquisition of YouTube. If you combine a website that allegedly engages in "massive intentional copyright infringement" with the deep pockets of one of America's largest companies, you're asking for lawsuits. From the AP:

MTV owner Viacom Inc. sued the popular video-sharing site YouTube and its corporate parent, Google Inc., on Tuesday, seeking more than $1 billion in damages on claims of widespread copyright infringement.

Viacom claims that YouTube has displayed more than 160,000 unauthorized video clips from its cable networks, which also include Comedy Central, VH1 and Nickelodeon.

As noted by the WSJ Law Blog, Viacom is represented by Jenner & Block in DC. We're curious to find out who gets tapped by Google for defense. We're looking forward to an interesting fight -- which, in addition to supplying entertainment value, will hopefully also clarify the proper operation of copyright law in cyberspace.

Viacom Sues YouTube Over Copyrights [Associated Press]
Viacom Sues Google and You Tube [WSJ Law Blog]

Worth your time: this article, from the front page of today's Washington Post, and this post, by Professor Dave Hoffman (who is quoted in the article).

Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web: Law Students Feel Lasting Effects of Anonymous Attacks [Washington Post]
Article on Xoxohth and Legal Gossip [Concurring Opinions]

* Maybe you read this over Sunday brunch. I was going to make a crack about barely educated sorority girls in schools I've never heard of in states I've barely heard of, but then I thought of this, or this, or this. You know who should shed some light on this? Tyra. [New York Times]

* As culturally valuable as Britney’s hair? [Yahoo News]

* Man was “more than” friends with Man’s Best Friend. (You also don’t need to explicitly define “cheating” to know he was also cheating on his girlfriend... although that's the least of her concerns.) [Bay City Times]

* Because we’re not all Wiki fans. [Conservapedia via Discourse.net]

We're up in New York right now for a symposium on legal writing at New York Law School. Topics to be covered include both legal academic writing, for student-run law reviews, as well as writing about legal affairs for a lay audience (e.g., through legal journalism and blogging).

The comfortable, well-lit classroom that we're in right now has excellent wireless internet access. So we will be blogging, both about the conference and non-conference subjects, throughout the day.

P.S. We think this conference will be very worthwhile. We're only applying the "Dubious Conferences" tag because we're quite proud of it, and don't get to use it enough.

Writing About the Law: From Bluebook to Blogs and Beyond [New York Law School]

* The only diet aid that couldn’t be accused of false advertising is heroin, so lay off Anna Nicole. What can I say, I always root for the underdog. [Yahoo! News]

* You’d think he’d be immune to this kind of alleged ridicule, having had his name his entire life. Pecker, embrace it the way I do Stellaq.com; I can’t tell you how easy it is to find dates these days. [Smoking Gun via Gawker]

* Charlize used her celebrity to peddle her mom’s crocheted scarf/poncho things (unfortunately for her mom, mainly by wearing them in Sweet November). So don’t tell me she can’t wear this luxury watch on an exclusive basis for “substantial funds.” [Courier Journal]

* He’ll still have to explain (a) the coke, (b) the 16-year-old girl, and (c) the motel. But at least dinner won’t revolve around why Daddy’s in jail. (Although it’s only a matter of time.) [Philadelphia Will Do; Bucks County Courier Times]

* I won’t comment on trial lawyers in general, but I’ll admit to instant suspicion of boyish-looking politicians. I’d rather trust creepy-looking John Edward. [Crime & Federalism]

* Wiki is as wiki does. [TaxProfs Blog]

* I have a lot of questions... Like how could the impact of Valle’s body force the elevators door open? How did Adams go from controversial HBO show to club manager? Who goes to BED these days? And what kinds of people base their lifestyle choices on a “featured in ‘Sex and the City’” seal of approval? [Reuters via Yahoo! News]

* Apple v. Apple has settled. [E! Online]

* When you use YouTube to bootleg 24, the terrorists win. [WSJ Law Blog]

* North Carolina doctors refuse to play executioner; executions temporarily blocked. [Jurist]

* Wal-Mart agrees to cough up $33 million for overtime violations. [FindLaw]

* This wasn't the law already?. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Seven defendants, including the estate of Kenneth Lay, dismissed from Enron shareholder derivative suit. [Jurist]

* Can someone please fix the damn clock in the Lewis Libby courtroom, before every news outlet turns it into a metaphor? [New York Times]

[Ed. note: We'll get back to associate pay raises shortly. But for those of you with no interest in the staggeringly high sums being earned by your Biglaw buddies, Stella Q has some Non-Sequiturs for you.]

* I’m not sure how they do it, but Reputation Defender can rid cyberspace of slanderous detritus, even if you’re probably the one who put it out there in the first place. [Reputation Defender via Daily Candy]

* For those of you who are solo practitioners and/or have your face on a bus, then this service may actually make good business sense. [Blawg]

* So we’ve been preoccupied with Charney, Shanetta and the tightening of the golden handcuffs -- don’t forget the juicy bits (betrayal! secrets! lies! some racial stuff!?) coming out of the Scooter Libby trial too. [Dean’s World via Media Bloggers]

* Puns kill. [Law.com]

* Is it presumptuous for the gorgeous, ageless Sidney Poitier to identify with Thurgood Marshall? (The answer is no, doubters! The evidence lies in these 25 questions.) [Vanity Fair]

* Yeah, but do any of them look like this? Also, I welcome recommendations as to up-and-coming bloggers or just quirky, personal favorites. [Blawg Review]

Last week there was some speculation over what happened to certain particularly delicious reader comments posted over at the WSJ Law Blog, concerning Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell.

As explained here:

"[N]o work is getting done [at S&C]. We're too busy concocting conspiracy theories about why certain highly-detailed comments to the WSJ law blog were pulled...(these posts were fairly specific in their criticisms of S&C and, in particular certain partners/wannabe underlings)..."

Over at the WSJ Law Blog itself, there was some meta-commentary about the deletion of these comments:

"Why are comments being deleted from the board? There were definitely a few on here that were posted since 7:35 AM today."

"[O]ne of my finest writings was summarily removed by the WSJ Law Blog thought police. Why don’t we all keep parallel logs of our writings as each is entered, and if the law blog continues with its caprice in 2007, et seq., we loggers can then start a class action against WSJ law blog. Coul[d] be fun!"

"I am a gay blogger and WSJ expunged me without my consent. It felt GREAT."

"A post regarding the attractiveness of one of the attorneys mentioned in complaint ([Melissa] Sawyer) was removed, I know that much because I remember it being there. And after looking up her profile myself . . yes, she is a fox."

We followed up with Peter Lattman of the WSJ Law Blog, to find out why certain S&C-related comments were getting zapped. We received a response from Bill Grueskin, managing editor of WSJ.com.

We reprint Mr. Grueskin's response, and explain ATL's own policy on reader comments, after the jump.

* If you support intelligent design, then these Inconvenient Truth-opposing parents want you in their PTA. [Seattle Times]

* If he had thrown down the gauntlet beforehand, might that be a mitigating factor? We can see the headlines now: If the glove doesn’t fit... [TaxProf Blog]

* Diana, you know the audience will be cheering for Effie, but Florence Ballard died 30 years ago -- and you’re going to be an American Idol “mentor”! Yeah, life has definitely been unfair in your favor. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* Some real-life law and order from a man known to die-hard L&O fans like myself as Chris Noth’s partner in the second season. (And, incidentally, it appears that the younger Sorvino daughter likes them as young as her brother-in-law.) [People]

* Napster rip-off Kazaa introduces its new YouTube rip-off called Joost. Why do I care? Because I wrote my law school thesis on Kazaa. And because Joost (as in “juiced”) is as stupid a name as “Kazaa.” [Los
Angeles Times]

* No one will be boning the cheerleaders after these games. (No lesbian coach jokes please! Title IX deserves some respect after all.) [New York Times via Overlawyered]

* The Australian Open imposed the Extreme Heat Policy today. Even Sharapova admitted how hot she was. (Don’t we know it.) [AP via FoxSports]

* Should you have got that insured, got GEICO for ya moneey? [SCOTUSblog]

* The Electric Frontier Foundation is arguing its first Wiki case today in federal district court (E.D.N.Y.). My opening argument would be, “If it’s in Wiki, it has to be right.” [Lessig Blog]

Check it out here.

We haven't had a chance to read the whole transcript yet. We've spent the afternoon chasing down bonus news and mystery smells.

But if you have read it, and have some reactions or favorite parts, please share them in the comments. Thanks!

Update: The Washington Post comments on Judge Posner's foray into cyberspace in this article.

The Second Life of Judge Richard A. Posner [New World Notes]
Posner: First Judge in Cyberspace [Eminent Domain via How Appealing]

* I think I may be the only New Yorker who regularly watches local channel NY1 -- I just can’t get enough of Pat Kiernan’s deadpan delivery, especially of the more frivolous items. What would he say (and too bad he can’t) about this doctored photo of his colleague “BBB”? [New York Post via Gothamist]

* Because monkeys are people too. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* The lesson learned is to move if you live near a dam. (I am amazed at my restraint in the face of such a punnable word, but hey, this is pretty serious.) [New Orleans City Business via Ernie the Attorney]

* Anyone who hasn’t been ripped on in cyberspace is either in a coma or hasn’t come out of his Y2K bomb shelter. I bet these guys would love to be able to claim a cause of action. [Findlaw]

* "[P]rosecutors will be investigating the backdating of stock options by companies for 'years to come.'" [WSJ Law Blog]

* "A state appeals court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by a boy who wanted to compete on his high school's girls' gymnastics team." [Sports Illustrated]

* Anna Nicole gets booted from another ex-boyfriend's mansion. [CNN]

* DHS wants to know what you eat on the airplane... [CNN]

* ... and your boss wants to know what your IMs say (e-discovery). [MSNBC]

* Woo-hoo!!! Good news for online rumor-mongerers like ourselves. [Volokh Conspiracy; Instapundit]

* And a bit of bad news, too. [Concurring Opinions]

* We weren't the only ones who had fun at Federalistapalooza. [Southern Appeal]

* "Conservative civil war": Not just at the Federalist Society. [Andrew Sullivan; Instapundit; Ryan Sager]

* When the subject of gay marriage comes up, social conservatives bring out a parade of horribles -- including polygamy. Now Ann Althouse wonders: Is it really so horrible? [Althouse]

* While we're linking to contrarian thinking, here's a different take on L'Affaire OJ.: "Rupert Murdoch's relevant anatomy shrunk to the size of two shriveled peas." [Crime & Federalism]

* Some food for thought: "If the [anti-burqa] legislation is enacted, a Dutch woman could marry her lesbian partner, spend her life smoking a little hashish now and then -- and when the time comes, get a doctor's assistance in pulling the plug -- all well within Dutch law. But she couldn't ride the subway with a veil over her face. What an odd country." [PrawfsBlawg]

* Actually, Will, we think this is really cool. Who wants to tour Civil War battlefields when you can visit these instead? [Crescat Sententia]

* It’s not slander if you call him a balding pervert. Or her an opportunist (and probably a desperate one at that -- this is really scratching the bottom of the barrel, honey). [Page Six]

* Quakers like to keep their lawsuits confined to townhouse meetings. If you think you knew this because you saw Witness, you are guilty of lumping together all the religious denominations of rural Pennsylvania, and that's just wrong. [Point of Law].

* The most obscure Baldwin brother, Daniel Baldwin, steals a car -- and then some. (Next Most Obscure Baldwin brother: Daniel needs your help.) [E! Online]

* Family road trips always suck. But memories are priceless (or potentially worth $300,000). [The Smoking Gun]

* Internet poker players, your help is needed -- for research into the deterrent effect of the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Mitchell Stein, Esq., is one unhappy dog owner. And if you were him, you wouldn't want this to happen to your dog, would you? On the other hand, it might stop it from humping your leg. [New York Times]

Here's the most important part of this post: If you're a reader of the most excellent Crescat Sententia, please note that IT HAS MOVED.

The new, correct address is http://www.crescatsententia.net/. If you go to the old address, you'll see what looks exactly like the old blog. But that is NOT the Crescat Sententia blog.

Here's the backstory, from Will Baude:

In September, without my knowledge or consent, our old domain was purchased by a Search Engine Optimization firm that intends to make money by either reselling the domain for a pretty penny to somebody greedy for its pagerank, or by using that pagerank to sell links to sites eager to trick Google. The webpage up there now is not this blog (it's an old cache that he will have to take down soon), and this blog is the current and future home of crescat.

Because of the switcheroo, I can't post a notice over there telling everybody where we've gone, so we're reliant on people updating their blogrolls, and on word of mouth. With your help, hopefully we can minimize the disruption this has already caused.

I thought about taking this as a sign that it was time to turn in and give up, but I think this whole episode was a vindication of some principle like loss aversion. I'm not ready to go yet, and when I am, it will be on other terms.

Please, please, spread the word. WWW.CRESCATSENTENTIA.NET.

When Will Baude emailed the owner of the company that acquired his domain name, he was told to take a hike. The owner expressed a willingness to sell the domain name back to Will -- for an exorbitant, extortionate price.

Those of you who blog probably realize what a total nightmare this is. Our sympathies go out to our blogging brethren at Crescat.

There's some great discussion of this issue over at Concurring Opinions (incl. the comments). See here, by Dan Solove, and here, by Kaimipono Wenger.

Moral of the Story: Website owners and bloggers, remember to renew your domain names -- early and often.*

* With Christmas approaching, here's an ATL holiday shopping tip: Domain names make great gifts. The person you purchase the domain name for may not use it immediately. But it's nice for them to know that, should they ever want to start up a blog, personal website, or business website, their domain name is reserved for them.

(Yeah, we're dorks -- we bought our parents their domain names for Mother's Day and Father's Day this year.)

The Remains of Crescat [CrescatSententia.net]
Quote of the Day [CrescatSententia.net]
Crescat Sententia's Exploited Domain Name [Concurring Opinions]
Slimy SEO's invade the Blawgosphere (Part II) [Concurring Opinions]

Move over, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. There's a new "Tube" case on the block.

YouTube is being sued -- but not by a company asserting a copyright claim. From the AP:

A company that shut down its Web site because it was overwhelmed by millions of people looking for YouTube has sued the online video-sharing portal.

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corp. said the cost of hosting its Web site -- utube.com -- has grown significantly in the last two months. "We've had to move our site five times in an effort to stay ahead of the youtube.com visitors," said Ralph Girkins, Universal Tube's president.

The lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court, asks that YouTube Inc. stop using the youtube.com or pay Universal Tube's cost for creating a new domain. It did not specify damages.

So Universal Tube, seller of used tube-making machines, expects YouTube, about to be acquired by Google for $1.65 billion, to relinquish one of the most well-trafficked web addresses on the internet? We don't think so. They would much rather pay Universal Tube the $8.99 it would cost to register a new domain name at GoDaddy.com.

We haven't read the complaint, and we profess no expertise in this area of law. But the lawsuit strikes us as... odd. What's the cause of action here? It doesn't seem like a conventional trademark or cybersquatting case, since presumably (1) YouTube has a valid trademark in YouTube, and (2) it properly occupies the domain name YouTube.com. If you're familiar with this case, please enlighten us, in the comments or by email.

Update: Check out this enlightening comment, which addresses some of our questions.

One more thing. Why doesn't Universal Tube make lemonade out of these cyber-lemons? Again from the AP:

The confusion took off a couple of months ago, [company president Ralph] Girkins said. The company, with just 17 employees, got 68 million hits on its site in August, making it one of the most popular manufacturing Web sites.

Sixty-eight million hits a month? People would KILL for traffic like that. Why not slap up a few paid third-party advertisements on UTube.com, to monetize some of that monster traffic, and use the ad revenues to beef up your capacity? Or cover UTube.com almost entirely with ads, move the operations of Universal Tube to an entirely separate website, and put up a prominent link on UTube.com referring confused customers to your new site?

Just wondering...

Ohio Company Utube.com Sues YouTube [Associated Press via WSJ Law Blog]

Federal judges are lucky in that they don't have to run for office. Because campaigns for judicial office can get so undignified. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via TortsProf Blog):

A Madison County official and Democratic Party stalwart said Tuesday that he is unapologetic about Internet hijinks that are drawing criticism from supporters of Republican Appellate Judge Steve McGlynn.

County Public Defender John Rekowski last year registered a website named www.citizensformcglynn.com. McGlynn's campaign committee is Citizens for McGlynn. Rekowski uses the Web address to redirect visitors to the site of McGlynn's political opponent, Circuit Judge Bruce Stewart of Harrisburg.

Stewart faces McGlynn, a Belleville lawyer appointed to the 5th District Appellate court last year, in a heated contest for an open seat on the court.

Here's what Rekowski -- the County Public Defender, and therefore a lawyer -- had to say for himself:

"People cyber-squat all the time," Rekowski said. "I'm an American citizen, and I can do as I please."

Well, yes. But then they get sued under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

(But query whether the ACPA would apply on these facts. We're not saying that it would; we're just observing that it's silly for Rekowski to defend himself by saying that cybersquatting is commonplace and that he can do as he pleases.)

Web Tactic on Foe's Behalf Upsets appellate court candidate [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
Aren't Judicial Elections Fun? [TortsProf Blog]