Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Fires Back At Viacom
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As we say in the legal profession, 'issue has been joined' in Viacom v. YouTube. In its answer to Viacom's complaint (PDF), filed Friday, YouTube says Viacom's lawsuit is intended to 'challenge... the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube.' It goes on to say that the suit 'threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.'"
The best part, in my opinion, is that they requested a jury trial. If they get that, Viacom is even more screwed.
I've been increasingly concerned about this in the past, but this suit seems to add significant evidence to my thesis.
As I remember, the DMCA has a safe harbor provision for "platform" and "network" providers that, basically says - as long as you don't exercise control over the content on your platform/network, you cannot be sued for infringement, the plaintiff must sue the one who uploads/transfers using your service.
However, YouTube has entered into agreements and instituted technology to pre-emptively purge it's "platform" of copyrighted material - Therefore, they are no longer protected by the safe harbor.
I would hazard a guess that those network providers who implement the pre-emptive content blocking of copyrighted materials being shared by peer-to-peer filesharing will eventually also be targeted.
It's interesting that the *AA are insisting on pre-emptive content filtering and the network and platform providers are giving in -- not realizing that in doing so, they cease to be protected...
IMHO - The *AA knows they soon will no longer be able to go after end users - the handwriting is on the wall. So they are setting up the next wave of lawsuits - network and platform providers. Since these are typically corporations that will simply pay to get rid of a lawsuit, it's easy money.
But in order to sue them (or have a reasonable threat), they have to make sure the safe harbor provision does not apply. As soon as a network or platform provider begins to filter the traffic or content, the safe harbor doesn't apply and they're fair game.
Remember that stupid $250,000 judgement the RIAA managed to get out of a jury? That the jury was stacked full of people who had never used the internet? How they were given improper instructions and bogus theories of "making available"?
Think how much easier it would be to find a jury that knew nothing about YouTube. They would eat up bullshit from Viacom about how Google became popular and made all of it's money off their garbage. They would know even less about slimy operations like Media Defender. Google could show them quirky home videos and free professional videos from the site and tell them that this is what the site was all about but it would be too foreign for the to understand. Society still has expectations that are warped by 90 years of government granted monopoly broadcast.
It will take another generation to heal and that will only happen if this trial goes right.
Not only bring back xenutv1, but explain to us how the Church of Scientology can open another account after having their first one removed due to harassment and cyber-bullying?
It is of course Google and YT's prerogative to operate their site as they see fit and even violate their own ToS as they have very clearly done here.
But by keeping xenutv1 shut down while allowing a Scientology to open a sponsored account calls into serious doubt how much we can trust YouTube to remain an impartial advocate of free speech in the user-created content industry.
Do No Evil my foot.
Commenting anonymous so the group-think drones don't karma-kill me for saying something they dislike.
The notion that filtering somehow invalidates the Title 17 Section 512 copyright infringement safe harbor is complete and utter bullshit which has gained inertia on Slashdot only by sheer repetition.
Please cite the exact line of the statue which you believe creates this effect before repeating this nonsense again.
The protection provided for service providers by OCILLA for service providers is damn near absolute, so long as they don't have actual knowledge of the infringement and so long as they comply with the takedown procedure. There is absolutely no requirement for neutrality or lack of filtering.
Viacom is arguing, among other things(*), that when the procedure is combined with anonymous users and the enormous scale of sites like Youtube that copyright is effectively nullified as an unintended side effect of how YouTube is complying with the takedown procedures, and that congress did not intend to nullify copyright. They will probably win that argument, because it's clearly true.
(*Viacom also argues that YouTube had actual knowledge of the infringement, that they are a publisher and not just a service provider because they transcode, thumbnail, and integrate the videos into their own pages rather than just make them available for download... Either of which would cause YouTube to lose the safe harbor.)
If your idea of entertainment is "Ow, My Balls", YouTube is probably all you have ever been looking for.
What YouTube offers is the distribution of entertainment they did not create. Clearly it is distributing Viacom content as well as that from lots of other sources as well. Viacom isn't going to be able to control this and is likely doomed in the long run.
Of course, "entertainment" is going to be of the "Ow, My Balls" caliber pretty soon. I do not see an upside to this. It is not freedom for the masses, it is public theft of private property. The result will be the elimination of the private property from being created.
Many people confuse "can't" with "won't", even in the personal case. I absolutely can walk down the street naked. I won't, because it's embarrassing, illegal, and unhealthy in this weather. (b) a corporate board of directors and corporate officers are pretty much required to choose the corporation's self interest. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm guessing that this follows the same rules. A corporate board of directors, and corporate officers, very well can choose an action that is not in the corporation's interest -- or not the absolute best, profit-maximizing move they could make.
They might well lose their job and their reputation, and have to start over in the mail room somewhere else, but they have that choice. In fact, they might gain a reputation for being an ethical person, which isn't bad.
So it is, again, that they won't -- that they care about their job more than their ethics. And if they care about their job that much, it probably has something to do with the money.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!