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

A 16-year-old girl posted a cry for help on YouTube two weeks ago. She was allegedly drugged and raped by a 23-year-old man. In the video, she does not name the rapist, but instead focuses on her disappointment that the Florida state attorney's office refused to prosecute the case.

CNN picked up on the story this week. Their take is that young people are using social networking sites to talk about sexual assault. From a legal perspective, we think using YouTube as a forum to criticize the justice system is the more interesting aspect. CNN touches on that as well:

But counselors said survivors are going to look wherever they can to find help and comfort, particularly when they don't get it through the court system.

Fewer than 5 percent of reported cases in Florida make it to a prosecutor's office, Dritt said. Whether because of lack of forensic evidence or because many are he said/she said accounts, rape cases can be very difficult to try.

"What you hear from every rape crisis center from Pensacola to Key West is that there are hardly ever any prosecutions," she said. "Most sexual violence is acquaintance rape, and unfortunately, a lot of juries still think that if a victim had a relationship with their attacker, then they cannot be raped by that person."

According to CNN, the case was dropped because the victim and the accused had an ongoing sexual relationship and the prosecutor concluded that their sex was consensual. Jezebel points out that the victim was just 15 at the time, and unable to give consent according to Florida law. We wonder how this will play out for Lawson Lamar, the state attorney for this district.

Teen alleging rape turns to YouTube [CNN]
Teenage Rape Victim Turns To YouTube For Help [Jezebel]
A 16 year old rape victim needs help [YouTube]

The law firm of Latham & Watkins has lots of things going for it: eye-popping profits, ample prestige, and a promise of no layoffs. What more could you ask for?

How about.... a powerful and glamorous client, with deep connections in Hollywood? Reported over at Radar Online:

Recently, Radar reported on Scientology's short-lived attempt to beat its Guy Fawkes mask-clad antagonists "Anonymous" at their own game: scary YouTube videos. A clip posted by a Sciento associate under the name "AnonymousFacts" displayed the names and personal information of several supposed Anonymous members and accused the group of violent threats and terrorism. YouTube quickly took the video down and suspended AnonymousFacts. But the hassle for at least one of the three men shown didn't end there.

A little more than a week ago, Jonathan (he asked his last name not be repeated again), who'd joined a Facebook group called "I Support Anonymous" and attended their protests, answered a knock at the door of his parents' L.A.-area home, where he lives while attending community college. A mustachioed man in a suit and claiming to be from the law firm of Latham and Watkins was holding a "file" and asked to speak to Jonathan's parents by name, he recently told Radar. He told the mystery man his parents weren't available and offered to take the package for them. "No," the man said. "I can't legally give this to you." Jonathan shrugged and told him to come back later. That's when things got weird.

Later a friend of the family came over and said Mr. Mustachio was hanging out in front of the house and had asked her if she was Jonathan's mom. When she said no, he waited until Jonathan's parents did arrive, then handed them the file and said, "This is a courtesy letter. No charges are being filed yet. But your son may be involved in terrorist activity." And then he left. Inside the package was a letter accusing Jonathan of terrorism and a DVD copy of the YouTube video, he says.

Sounds like a pretty fun assignment for a junior associate -- anything to get out of the office. But the "Church" denies this ever happened:

A Church of Scientology spokesperson says the group does employ various lawyers across the country to deal with what she tells Radar are "acts of violence, terrorism, and death threats," but adds, "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."

We've contacted Latham for comment. We'll let you know if and when we hear back from them.

Update: We have our doubts about the firm's involvement. Writes a commenter:

It is highly unlikely that the person hounding this kid is actually from Latham. Scientologists have a policy (called the "Fair Game" policy) that allows them to lie, cheat, impersonate, physically threaten/assault, etc. if it will further the aims of the "church". Although that policy was ostensibly cancelled at some point (in name only), scientologists continue to live by it in practice. It's pretty much guaranteed that the man with the file was not from Latham but was instead a scientology poser.

Seriously--would an associate from Latham actually serve papers on anyone? F**k, no. We use process servers!!

We feel bad for Latham. Some imposter is going around making it look like they represent the Church of Scientology. And their lawyers have mustaches.

Further Update: Or maybe Latham DOES represent the Church of Scientology? See here. (Gavel bang: commenter.)

We have reiterated our inquiry to Latham concerning whether or not the firm represents the Church of Scientology. We'll let you know what we find out. (They did not respond to an earlier request for comment on this subject.)

Final Update: Read more in this update.

'Anonymous' Kid Outed by Scientologists Gets House Call [Fresh Intelligence: Radar Online]

Most law firm name changes are pretty silly. The general approach: lop off all names after the first two. If you like, squish the surviving names together into one word, to make yourselves seem contemporary and cool. E.g., "WilmerHale." (A law firm marketing firm would charge you five figures for that advice.)

Okay, so how do you get anyone to care about your name change? You make a YouTube video, that's how! Here's a press release from Hanson Bridgett LLP, a northern California firm with about 130 lawyers:

The firm formally known as Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos, & Rudy LLP has a new tag line—"Inspired"—to go with its new logo and a new abridged name, Hanson Bridgett LLP. Breaking through the monotony of the legal landscape, the firm is employing a light-hearted video to help disseminate the re-branding roll-out by "word of mouse."

Seriously. As the press release notes, "[t]he video stars Hanson Bridgett Managing Partner Andrew Giacomini, who is seen banging a bass drum while walking down Market Street in Lederhosen and knee-highs."

The video, cutely entitled "The Law Accordion to Hanson Bridget," is kinda weird, and a bit too long; you really need just the first and last 30 seconds. But it's an interesting experiment in law firm marketing. Check it out:

Oh, and the firm has its own blog: the Infrastructure Law Blog. Infrastructure law sounds even more boring than ERISA may not be the sexiest practice area ever. But the firm deserves props for participating in, rather than fighting, the online revolution.

P.S. Yes, we've seen the Pillsbury Winthrop video. We'll be writing about it in a separate post.

The Law Accordion To Hanson Bridgett [YouTube]
Hanson Bridgett Launches New Look, Video to Match [press release]
Infrastructure Law Blog
Hanson Bridgett LLP [official website]

We just finished watching America's Next Top Model. So it's quite appropriate for us to pass along this modeling montage video, which is amusingly bizarre. From a tipster:

I hate to pile it on, but you have to check out this YouTube clip of a University of Miami 1L. It's a seven-minute clip of various glamour shots, set to the soothing sounds of flamenco guitar. I think my favorite photos involve her posing with a samurai sword.

We agree; nothing beats a samurai sword paired with fishnets. But the pics of her in a midriff-baring schoolgirl outfit, replete with pigtails, are also pretty great. As is the photo of her humping a white banister, which kicks off the whole thing.

You don't need to watch the entire video, since the shots start to repeat after a while, but stick around at least until "Hotel California." Enjoy!

Update (12:15 AM): Sigh. If you click on the video below, you'll see that it has been pulled. We seem to have the anti-Midas touch when it comes to law school videos: everything we link to gets yanked. See, e.g., here (Harvard) and here (Columbia).

A little bit more, after the jump.

The most famous student or graduate of Regent University School of Law, the conservative law school founded by the American televangelist Pat Robertson, is probably the fabulous Monica Goodling. If you're on Facebook, you can join her fan club here.

But a husky, heavily tattooed freak-show 2L is giving La Goodling a run for her money. From the Virginian-Pilot:

Regent University officials have threatened to discipline a law student for posting on his Facebook page an unflattering photo of Regent President Pat Robertson.

The student, Adam M. Key, defended his action as constitutionally protected free speech in a 14-page legal brief he presented to the dean of the law school.

Regent officials gave Key two choices: publicly apologize for posting the picture and refrain from commenting about the matter in a “public medium,” or write a brief defending the posting. He faces punishment that could include expulsion.

Key, a second-year law student, said he refused to apologize and “be muzzled” by the university, so he composed the document, which includes citations from noted First Amendment cases.

More after the jump.

A reader drew a legally-themed music video to our attention:

It's from a specialized patent blog, but some of your readers may find it funny -- especially because is an actual partner from a large firm singing the song. Is this a new BigLaw marketing trend?

Check out the video via Patently O. As you can see from the lyrics, the song is a comparison of dating to the Patent Act.

Performer Lana Knedlik, a fine-boned, pixieish beauty, looks like she could be an indie film actress or Indigo Girl. She strikes us as considerably younger and more attractive than the average (1) registered patent attorney or (2) partner at a large law firm.

(No offense to patent lawyers or Biglaw partners. We're just sayin'...)

Redefining the Bar Date [Patently O]
Bar Date by Lana Knedlik [YouTube]
Lana M. Knedlik bio [Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP]

* More lawyers -- no, not Nixon Peabody -- have a bone to pick with YouTube. [Michael Geist]

* UK study: "Workers who spend time on sites such as Facebook could be costing firms over £130m a day." [BBC via Dealbreaker]

* Speaking of Facebook, here's some advice that's so obvious, yet so frequently ignored: "[I]f you don't want a hiring partner to see it, it probably shouldn't be up on the web." [PrawfsBlawg]

Update: As noted by a commenter, the first comment to the PrawfsBlawg post is pretty great.

* New Yorkers, take note: Could Wall Street Woes Sink NYC Real Estate? [DealBreaker]

* Blawg Review #125 is up. [Real Lawyers Have Blogs via Blawg Review]

* Have a question you're dying to ask Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court? Here's your chance. [SCOTUSblog]

Right now some of you are probably thinking: "Enough already about Alberto Gonzales and Michael Vick! Isn't there anything else you can write about?"

Of course. Let's go back to the story of Nixon Peabody, and its ridiculous law firm theme song!

(In preemptive response to those of you who are sick and tired of this story: relax. It's on its last legs. But if the New York Times writes about us, of course we're going to acknowledge it. Capice?)

For those of you were on vacation last week -- and we know many of you were, based on all the "Out of Office AutoReply" messages we received -- you missed a fun story here at ATL.

But don't worry. If you don't have time to read our voluminous coverage of the Nixon Peabody theme song, here are some cheat sheets.

You can read this New York Times story, by Michael de la Merced, which nicely summarizes the saga. Or this post, by Peter Lattman, over at the WSJ Law Blog.

Best of all, for those of you who can watch videos -- some of you can't, 'cause you don't have a private office -- check out this awesome video. It appeared over the weekend, but we're reposting it, because many of you don't visit ATL on the weekend (and it would be a shame for you to miss it).

Unauthorized Enjoyment of Song Irks Law Firm [New York Times]
Everyone’s a Winner at Nixon Peabody! [WSJ Law Blog]
Re: Nixon Peabody [YouTube]

Please see the short parody video posted below. Is this a casebook-ready example of "fair use," or what?

To ChurchHatesTucker, who produced the video: You are a genius and a god.

(Please note that we had no hand in making this video. ChurchHatesTucker acted sua sponte, after reading this Techdirt story.)

Update: Blawg Review, quoting from Nixon Peabody's own Copyright & Internet Law Glossary, explains why the video is fair use over here.

Re. Nixon Peabody [YouTube]

Sadly, the humorless crew over at Nixon Peabody has had their fabulous law firm song -- which, mind you, is NOT a theme song -- pulled from YouTube. See here.

Even if it's gone from YouTube, you can still access "Everyone's A Winner" as a plain-vanilla MP3 file. Just click here. We incorporate by reference all of our prior commentary on the song.

This memorable tune will also live on in the blogosphere. Numerous fine websites and blogs picked up on the story of the Nixon Peabody song controversy. Here are a few links:

1. Law Firms, the Blogosphere, and Unexpected Attention [Volokh Conspiracy (Orin Kerr)]

2. That ridiculous Nixon Peabody “theme song” was for real [Daily Intelligencer / New York Magazine]

3. Wow. Big law is so lame. With a capital "L" [Legal Antics (Nicole Black)]

4. Nixon Peabody Throws Fantastic Tantrum: Threatens Blogger Over Leaked Song [Keeping Up With Jonas]

5. Blogger contends posting silly leaked law firm song is fair use [ZDNet (Denise Howell)]

6. Everyone's a Winner (or, Friday Music Blog) [PrawfsBlawg (Liz Glazer)]

7. Sorry, but no one involved is a winner [IPTAblog (Andrew Raff)]

8. Best/Worst Law Firm Song. Ever. [the (non)billable hour (Matt Homann)]

9. OMG...The Worst Song Ever [Two Guitar Heroes and a Cat]

10. Everyone Is A Winner At Nixon Peabody [The Dish Daily]

11. Nobody Is Above the Law [Galley Slaves (Jonathan Last)]

If you know of a link that's missing, feel free to email us, and we can add it. Thanks!

Update: Additional links:

12. Sure, your firm just gave you a $25k raise, but do you have a theme song? [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]

13. Law Firm Going Crazy to Keep Its Corporate Song Off the Internet [The Startup Lawyer]

14. Law Firm Freaks Out That Ridiculous Corporate Song Leaked Out To Blogs [Techdirt]

15. Re. Nixon Peabody [YouTube (ChurchHatesTucker)]

Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody (mp3 file)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Nixon Peabody (scroll down)

Our most recent post about Nixon Peabody -- which has a song, but NOT a theme song -- is about to scroll off the ATL front page. And we couldn't allow that, now could we?

So here's an update. A few brief points:

1. Some of you have described a fabulous video that accompanied "Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody." Sadly, we've never seen this video. If you have a copy, please send it to us.

2. We received the song, from multiple sources, as an MP3 file. It was being widely disseminated by email ("FW: FW: FW:"). As far as we know, it was not sent to us by a disgruntled ex-Winner (contrary to the quasi-paranoid speculation of NP brass).

3. As of now, the song remains on YouTube. It has been viewed almost 14,000 times and garnered several accolades, including #26 - Most Viewed (Entertainment) and #11 - Most Linked (Entertainment).

4. In case the song gets yanked from YouTube, you can now access it directly on ATL, as an MP3 file. Just click here. Enjoy!

5. Some of you have inquired into the identities of the NP representatives with whom we spoke yesterday. These individuals expressly asked not to be identified by name (quelle surprise), and we agreed to that request. But we can tell you that they were in-house reps, not external PR people. One is a firm spokesperson, and one works on the business side of the firm. As far as we know, neither is a lawyer.

We haven't heard more from the firm since yesterday afternoon's phone call. If we do hear from them again, rest assured that we will let you know.

Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody (mp3 file)

We've been in touch with representatives of the Nixon Peabody law firm about the musical composition that we posted (mp3) and wrote about this morning. First they sent us a statement by email:

"This song was put together in celebration of Nixon Peabody's Fortune 100 'Best Places to Work' recognition. Nixon Peabody aims to be the best law firm to work with and the best law firm to work for. Fun is not prohibited here."

Fair enough. But then we spoke with two firm spokespersons by telephone. They called us.

It wasn't a very "[f]un" conversation. They weren't happy campers. Even if they may be winners, since "everyone's a winner at Nixon Peabody."

They emphasized that the song was internal to the firm and is protected by copyright. They also insisted that it is NOT a "theme song" -- in any way, shape or form.

They demanded to know who sent the song to us. We informed them that we don't reveal our sources, unless served with a subpoena (and maybe not even then -- a Judy Miller-style jail stint might be good publicity for ATL).

They asserted copyright over the song and asked us to take it down, from our site and from YouTube. We stated our view that posting and commenting on the song constitutes fair use. It also falls within our newsgathering mission as a media organization.

We explained that our site is all about law firms and the legal profession. They said: "We know what you're about."

They claimed the person who leaked this song is "in a fight" with Nixon Peabody, and menacingly stated that they (meaning NP) "don't intend to let this thing lie." We informed them that we have no desire to get involved in the firm's purported dispute with this unnamed individual. And that's where we left things.

More thoughts after the jump.

* Worst Craigslist prank we've seen in a while. [News Tribune]

* Leaves homemade videos of karaoke sessions and musical burping in the dust. [MSN]

* Whenever you fall into a funk and feel that you have nothing to show for your life thus far, think of this sad lawyer, who has only placed a $2000 reserve value on her entire life. [Star Tribune]

* Looks like a heavy courseload. [QuizLaw via Jesus' General]

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]

According to the recent lawsuit filed by Aaron Charney, Sullivan & Cromwell thinks that Canadians are "irrelevant."

We have a different view of our neighbors to the north. We think Canucks are horny. And pretty damn funny.

This music video, Promiscuous Firm, is from the 2007 University of Alberta Law Show. And it's far more entertaining -- and well-produced -- than any video we've seen from a U.S. law school's annual show or roast.

(Yes, even the Tim Wu video.)

Here's the clip. It's great from about 1:30 onwards (or 3:00 if you're watching "backwards"):

Best double entendre, from the attractive female hiring partner (around the 2:20 mark):

I'm a big firm, I can handle myself
But if I have an opening, I may need your help.

Indeed.

Promiscuous Firm [YouTube]

* 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]

* So apparently the feds knew about law firm bonuses before ATL. [MSNBC]

* Guess which party just picked up two swing states. [CNN]

* Shutting down YouTube: the ultimate jealous boyfriend move. [MSNBC]

* OJ's money is going nowhere for now. [AP]

* Federal court allows suit against Vatican. [MSNBC]

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]

We like YouTube. A lot. It's where we uploaded the infamous FU deposition clip -- and where we'd like to upload more law-related video clips, if we can get our hands on them. We also go to YouTube to watch music videos, like ones starring Phil Alito look-alikes.

So were delighted to learn about YouTube being acquired by another company we can't live without, namely, Google. The price tag was a hefty $1.65 billion, even though YouTube has yet to turn a profit. But hey, Google paid in stock. So if we see another internet crash, well, it all goes down the YouTubes (although it is true that Google, unlike YouTube, does turn a substantial profit.)

And it's smart of YouTube to take steps to forestall Napster-esque legal problems, such as the nightmarish ones predicted by Mark Cuban. Per the New York Times:

YouTube said it had struck accords to license content from two of the four major music conglomerates — the Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment — and the CBS television network in exchange for a percentage of YouTube’s advertising revenue.

YouTube is also expected to use new technology to identify copyrighted material that users have uploaded to the site without permission, and to share ad revenue with media companies that own the video or music content. (YouTube made a similar pact with the Warner Music Group last month, and had a previous advertising deal with NBC in June).

YouTube took these steps just as it was winding up its merger talks with Google. It's like taking tons of antibiotics to take care of that nasty case of chlamydia, right before you tie the knot. Good work, YouTube!

Dot-Com Boom Echoed in Deal to Buy YouTube [New York Times]
YouTube Wheels and Deals to Avoid Copyright Suits [Associated Press via Law.com]