Slashdot Mirror
Case Against Video-Sharing Site Dismissed
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A California copyright infringement case brought by an adult video maker against a video sharing web site, Veoh Networks, has been thrown out, based upon the 'safe harbor' provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ('DMCA'). In a 33-page decision (PDF), the Court concluded that Veoh was covered by the DMCA, and had carried out its duties to comply with takedown notices in a reasonable manner. The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments showing possible ways that users could do an end-around, saying that the law requires 'reasonable' compliance, rather than perfection, and noted that the DMCA is 'designed to facilitate the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age'."
I KNEW the lifeblood of the internet was pr0n!
The DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough credit on /.
While I'm no fan of the DMCA on the whole, I actually like the takedown provisions. They provide valuable protection for ISPs.
My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused. The law itself provides a remedy against abuse. Those abusing the law can be charged with perjury. Unfortunately, no one has ever been charged with perjury for false take down notices, so the abuse continues. It would only take a few perjury charges a year to keep everyone honest...
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
I believe the loophole here is that there's a story (albeit a terrible, perfunctory one usually) and the sex is part of the this story. So they are not being paid "just" to have sex...they're acting and are being paid to be actors. Since restricting filmmakers from recording graphic sex in the course of a story is considered an infringement of free speech, that's why what appears to be plain old prostitution is legal.
What I've always wondered is why prostitutes didn't set up a similar model. Obtain a business license to sell some sort of product like...I don't know...yarn. Have a certain price on the yarn like $300 and collect the appropriate taxes and what not on the yarn...after all, you're free to charge whatever you want for your products. After you sell an actual good, then have sex with the purchaser. They aren't paying you for sex, they bought item X and incidental to that purchase you decided to have sex with them. Much like the actresses in porn movies are not being paid to have sex, they're having sex incidental to their role as a character in a sexually-themed story.
It'd be an interesting tactic, but meh...probably too much work for the average working girl I suppose. Easier to do it on the side and hope you don't get caught I guess.
eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent?
Ray Beckerman, with all due respect, that is not at all how I see it. I have just resigned myself to the fact that a court case with a billion dollars at stake will not be lost because a California judge knocked down an infringement case about ten pornographic videos that were immediately taken down anyhow. Lawyers do not say goodbye to a billion that easily!
Of course that is not why the YouTube case will be lost. The YouTube case will be lost because the California judge was right.
You are the lawyer however! It would bring me great joy to hear otherwise but I would expect Viacom's lawyers to play the same card they played in their press release--attempting to convince the judge that there are too many differences between these cases to consider Io Vs Veoh to be precedence.
Thing is, they can say anything they want to in a press release. In court, though, it's not so easy. If you make factual claims that aren't so, you will get burned. And if you make legal arguments that aren't supportable, you will get burned. Unfortunately, all Viacom has to work with is factual claims that aren't so, and legal arguments that aren't supportable. The end result of the YouTube case, if it is not settled, will be a multimillion dollar attorneys fee award against the plaintiffs.
It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.
The MPAA has a suit against YouTube? What is it? All I know of is Viacom's suit and, though a member, they are not every single Movie Picture Association of America Member.
You are right, I stand corrected. I had remembered it as being a gang of plaintiffs, but actually it was just a few.
Also, I think the 'nail in the coffin' phrase is being used to soon here. The cases I've been following seem to point to the entire US Justice System being in **AA's pet attack dog in witch trials. While there's been a few cases of common sense, the vast majority of cases are being settled out of court because the judge is a corporate pawn and insolent technology-wise.
Well point me to some monstrous decision, of recent vintage, supporting your thesis (and in doing so please confine yourself to cases where the defendant could afford a lawyer).
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful