Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dueling Summary Judgment Motions In Viacom v. YouTube

Posted by timothy on from the well-we-did-do-the-nose-and-the-hat dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Eric Goldman, an Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, has an excellent analysis of the dueling summary judgment motions in Viacom v. YouTube. Basically, both sides have been trotting out the most damning things they can find and asking the judge to rule against the other party. Viacom is mad that Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, lost his email archive and couldn't remember some old emails. Worse, YouTube founder Karim once uploaded infringing content. But then Google points out that only a very small percentage of the users are engaged in infringing activity (some 0.016% of all YouTube accounts have been deleted for infringement), one of the clips Viacom is suing over is only one second long (what about fair use?), and most of YouTube's content is non-infringing, including the campaign videos which all major US presidential candidates posted to YouTube." (More below.) "But the worst thing they found is that Viacom can't make up their mind. They spent $1M advertising on YouTube and tried to buy it. And even though they demanded that YouTube remove videos containing Viacom property on sight, Viacom had a complex internal policy authorizing some clips, including ones disguised as 'leaks' and put out by their marketers. Viacom was so conflicted internally that their very expensive lawyers couldn't figure out what Viacom had authorized to be uploaded even after doing extensive research as required by court rules, only to discover that some of the clips Viacom was suing over were ones Viacom uploaded themselves. The lawyers then had to go to court and drop those clips from their case — twice. They missed some the first time."

3 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website by miffo.swe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Call me old fashioned but i find GNAA hilarious because of the question; are there this many people trying to get into the GNAA association?

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  2. Attorney generals? As Goldman says, "WTF?" by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What kind of law professor doesn't know that it's Attorneys General?

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, get tenure.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Re:Grammar alert! by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did I write the article in question? Do I style myself a professor of law? I must have forgotten that.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.