Youtube vs Viacom

Viacom sued youtube for hosting its copyrighted material on the web and not doing enough to protect the copyrighted material. They are pressing for $1 billion for the 1.5 billion hits that Viacom content had on the youtube. Fair Enough.
I wouldn't have supported Viacom, but for the precedence of napster and the google's self righteous smugness in claiming the 'Don't be Evil' as their motto. How much ever the consumer is benefited and what ever be the outcome of the current debates on the ethics of piracy, companies like youtube need to be accounted for. If napster and kazaa had to go, youtube also must go. I see no difference in the business model.
You cannot say 'don't be evil' and then host all the copyrighted content, scan all the copyrighted books without taking the permission of the owners. Taking down the content.. when the owner requests, is not good enough. You cannot expect the owners to keep a watch on all the distribution channels to see where they are being ripped off. If making it easy for the users to find content is your selfless goal, you can redirect the users to the owner websites. If you can prevent porn to appear on the youtube, you likely can prevent the copyrighted stuff to show up too.
Or build business like 'joost' after making contracts with the content providers first. Not the other way round, use them to build the market and then use the might to force them in to submission.

Or, just say we're 'Evil' and we can rest the case.