In a significant and even surprising reverse from its somewhat pugnacious stance against Viacom and other major content companies, Google's subsidiary YouTube yesterday launched a beta version of what it calls YouTube Video Identification. The aim is apparently to appease the companies who felt the free downloads of major feature films and other content was undercutting their own ability to sell product.

"Video Identification," said YouTube product manager David King, "is the next step in a long list of content policies and tools that we have provided copyright owners so that they can more easily identify their content and manage how it is made available on YouTube."

Poking conspicuously out of his statement is a reiteration of Google's longtime policy of stating that it's up to the copyright holders to do their own policing and take-downs of video content, regardless of what identifying tools YouTube provides.

Viacom's top attorney Michael Fricklas responded, "We're delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and ending the practice of profiting from infringement."

Said correspondent Nicholas Carlson of ValleyWag, who covered the announcements and tells me via e-mail that no "Googlers" have responded to his request that insiders post comments explaining why the web giant made this concession so abruptly, Fricklas' reply could be summed up as, "In other words, take that, geekboys."

Added Carlson: "Odd, right? What gives, Google? ... after promising a fight and talking abig game we get this?

He's referring to the more combative days of mid-summer, when Google and YouTube were still somewhat obdurately measuring their response to a Viacom suit asking over $1 billion in damages, accusing Google and YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement."

This came in tandem with an assault over the summer by against Google's original video service, Google Video by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). The NLPC pointed to the availability online of pirated movies being hosted on Google Video, including Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and "Live Free or Die Hard," and even Hairspray, which hadn't yet hit the marketplace.

Still not placated, as pointed out in today's New York Times story, are the British soccer broadcasters who say the identification measure will be ineffective.

Fricklas shared his own doubts:
"We'll be watching to ensure that the system is reasonably effective and sufficiently robust to address the issue."

What's become clear is that Google has been quietly partnering behind the scenes with the biggest stakeholders--reportedl nine major entities, including besides Viacom, Time Warner, CBS. Disney and NBC Universal.

The "fingerprint" identification programs are neither new--other services have used them for some time, as the copyright holders vehemently pointed out to Google--nor 100 percent effective. "The question is, Can we get to 80 or 90 percent?" Google C.E.O. Eric Schmidt recently said.

But the measure represents a genuine thaw. The shield Google had previously thrown up--reference s to the Digital Millennium Copyright (DMCA) Act. (Though it's referenced in veiled way by King's statement, "As copyright holders make their preferences clear to us up front, we'll do our best to automate that choice while balancing the rights of users, other copyright holders, and our community as a whole.")

Part of the upside for the copyright holders is the possibility that cooperation could bring revenue to both Google and the copyright holders, who could engage Google to promote the content and also bracket it with online ads, splitting the take between them.

Despite this, the Viacom suit is apparently still in the works; clearly the corporation is still angry that the horse--as in, say, a pretty complete roster of episodes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart downloaded by his eager fan base--has already left the barn, and they're presumably looking for some pretty ample compensation.