Is the current situation of Viacom case meant by lawmakers?

Maybe, the progress of technology is something to welcome. Google’s Utube surely contributed to advance of new culture such as UCC. Of course I think it is good thing. However, new technology always seems to bring dark side as well, as is manifest in the litigation between Viacom and Google, and sometimes it looks like the distinction between the evangelist of new technology and blatant copyright infringer is really a matter of paper-thin. Grokster was found as an inducement infringer as they were manifesting outwardly their intention to make money through copyright infringement. In terms of business model of making money, is Google so much different from Grokster? Maybe as a sophisticated business entity, their knowledge of potential copyright infringement that might be brought about was not much different. But Google was wiser than Grokster enough to use DMCA as its shield. As the judge said in its summary judgment of the Viacom litigation, in legal perspective, it may be correct that Google’s knowledge of infringement on Utube website should be specific and general knowledge of infringement is not sufficient. However, Google’s knowledge of prevailing infringement seems to be far more than that of the mere possibility of infringement, and sometimes almost akin to specific knowledge considering Google’s status in the industry and its experience of so much complaint from the copyright holders. On top of that, Google is being helped in making money through that kind of infringement, and maybe this is the situation it has no reason to object to. So, I wonder if this is the situation that the lawmakers of DMCA really postulated.