Viacom: Yeah, We Knew We'd Have to Appeal the YouTube Case
According to one judge’s reading of copyright laws, it’s perfectly OK for a site like YouTube to turn a blind eye to pilfered content on its service, so long as that material is “swiftly” taken down when notified.
“[I]f a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a ‘red flag’) of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material. If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement,” U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton wrote in his ruling yesterday held that Google and YouTube are protected from Viacom’s copyright-infringment lawsuit claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see Judge: YouTube Protected From Viacom’s Copyright-Infringement Claims).
“General knowledge that infringement is ‘ubiquitous’ does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements,” Judge Stanton concluded.
This may be a perfectly accurate reading of how the DMCA applies in this case.
But does it make sense that copyright laws should, in effect, allow Internet services to steal first — and only respect content owners’ rights if they’re called out after the fact?
Viacom, for one, obviously thinks something is amiss. The company has pointed to internal Google documents unearthed in the case including one 2006 presentation that said, “YouTube’s business model is completely sustained by pirated content” (see Google Document: YouTube ‘Sustained By Pirated Content’).
Yes, YouTube removed disputed clips after the media company sued, Michael Fricklas, Viacom executive vice president, general counsel and secretary, acknowledged in a statement released Wednesday night.
“Before that, however, YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars,” Fricklas said. “We believe that should not be allowed by law or common sense.”
Fricklas said that Viacom “always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today’s decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.”
Viacom plans to appeal the decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Michael commented:
A seemingly obvious solution - require that Google vet any videos for copyright violations before they are allowed to place ads with the video. If they don't want to review a video, fine, they're not required to - but if they wish to sell ads alongside a video, it should be incumbent on Google to check for copyright infringement BEFORE realizing revenue from it.
As for our "internet culture" - theft by any other name is still theft.
Todd Spangler commented:
Shuttleman - good point. But to stretch this metaphor further..
Let's say you had Reader's Digest printing a monthly magazine with a bunch of user-contributed stuff, and a good portion of it was copyrighted material used without permission.
Should they be allowed to keep printing in that model? Or is it enough that they say, "Oops, sorry, we'll run an apology in next month's issue"?
Shuttleman commented:
The principle here seems to me to be the same as it is with printed work. If you use it inappropriately (beyond "fair use") or without permission, it is incumbent on the copyright holder to seek enforcement. A printer of the work can not be held liable unless they reasonably could have known it contained copyright work. Once notified, they must change the printed work or stop printing and distributing it.
JohnH_in_OKC commented:
Viacom's execs who have pursued this lawsuit are just trying to destroy our internet culture. The people who post videos on Youtube are sharing these clips with friends, near and far. This is "fair usage" in my opinion. Youtube hosts more non-copyright video than video with copyrights. Most copyright holders don't consider their property stolen - they are proud that their work is showcased on Youtube, which lets the world view their talent. The exposure does lead to a lot of music and video sold on iTunes and at Walmart and Best Buy. The fact that Youtube quickly deletes any legitimate copyrighted material off their site when requested by copyright holders is all that is necessary. Youtube didn't post the copyrighted material. I doubt that Viacom will prevail on a lawsuit that most of us think is dangerous to preserving our music and video clips for our posterity.