Legal experts say the main points of contention also include how much knowledge the Internet companies have of specific examples of infringement. Viacom in its suit contends it can be impossible to look at YouTube without seeing specific examples of infringement, copyright video clips uploaded by users.

I'm kind of sidestepping the larger issues here to respond to just this statement, but i can say for certain that I frequently click through a half dozen YouTube clips without seeing anything that appears to be infringing. I would never argue that infringement doesn't happen, but I think it's equally absurd to claim that one CAN NOT use the site without encountering it.

As for the whole thing, I think the result will be far reaching and I wonder if the target state argues in favor of compulsory licensing. I see no good way to allow the content owners to maintain their iron fist approach to content control without absolutely stifling technological innovation. I don't see it.

Viacom vs Google, or: How the DMCA stopped being something only 1337 hackers and pinko lawyers cared about.