Slashdot Mirror
iFilm Infringement Could Blunt Viacom's YouTube Argument
Radio Silence writes "Infringing videos on iFilm could undermine Viacom's case against YouTube. Although it's arguably not a nest of infringement like YouTube, iFilm appears to host more than a handful of videos for which its corporate parent Viacom does not own the copyright. More importantly, Viacom isn't engaging in the kind of proactive infringement identification practices it expects of YouTube, which may cause problems for them in court. 'if Viacom isn't willing to take the same steps with iFilm that it wants YouTube to take with copyrighted content, Viacom may have a harder time making its case before the judge presiding over the case. "It would have some persuasive value with a judge if YouTube says 'look, they're ranting and raving about all this infringement occurring on my site and they're not doing anything about it themselves,'" said copyright attorney Greg Gabriel.'"
Keep in mind this is not the "they did it too!" defense. This is the "What you're asking is unreasonable, see even your own company can't comply!" defense.
Your argument would be true if there was some law that would require YouTube to install filters. However, Viacom is asking a court to order GooTube to do this as a matter of public policy. When making considerations about public policy, judges would probably be persuaded by the argument that if it's too burdensome for the plaintiff to do it, why should the defendant do it when there's no law mandating it?
The media companies themselves aren't stupid. Look at the All-Time Most Viewed on YouTube. We've got OK! Go (a band signed with Capitol Records/EMI, an RIAA member), Nike, SNL (NBC), My Chemical Romance (a band with Reprise, a Warner Bros. label, also an RIAA member). Record labels are on it, production companies/ film studios, and a heck of a lot of networks. Here's a short list of partners.
YouTube (and sites like it) should be treated a bit different than the Napster of old. It holds a lof of other advantages over "old piracy", all of which is extremely useful to owners of the copyright:
There's a lot more to this, of course. But networks (finally!) aren't being total idiots. As far as I know, the three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all let you stream shows for free through their sites. Other networks may be doing the same thing (to some extent, Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, Comedy Central, and the Sci-Fi channel do this). I don't think YouTube is the be-all and end-all in matters of online media. I'm speaking alot about them just because they're referenced in the article and they're the 'Video_blog Portal 2.0' (or whatever) that I'm most familiar with.
It gives me some hope that user response seems about as positive as Napster and the media conglomerate's response has been a hell of a lot more tempered; consumers get content for free, media creators/owners/distributors lose less control. Sure, crazy DRM schemes still pop-up, but this gives me hope that we're progressing positively. I'll take non-intrusive DRM as long as it does no harm and I get content for less (or free), not for the same price or more.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Youtube makes money by violating copyrights.
Incorrect. YouTube makes money by providing users with a medium of information exchange. YouTube does not violate the copyrights, the users who upload copyrighted content do.
YouTube is further protected from claims of copyright violation by the safe harbor laws of the DMCA. They honor all takedown notices, even when there is doubt. So, they actively obey the letter of the law, and as such do not violate copyright.
"Violate copyright" is a legal term, not a moral term. Legally, they are not guilty of this, as the courts will demonstrate.
Whether or not you think it is morally wrong for them to allow their users to upload copyrighted content is an entirely different issue, of course, though I am sure you and I would disagree on that one too.