Dueling Summary Judgment Motions In Viacom v. YouTube

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."

Comments

Its not about the content.

[miffo.swe]

This is about being the gatekeeper to media content. It has nothing at all to do with piracy per see. Youtube is the place to be if you want content to spread, like traliers, new bands etc.

If Youtube becomes the place to be for content Viacom and the rest of the leeches gets taken out of the equation as distributors. Its the same fight the RIAA is making. Its not about piracy, its about deciding what you watch, listens to and buys.

Re:Its not about the content.

[thijsh]

You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.

This is not true, the fines imposed on blank media for example are all going to big labels. I think the chance of my blank CD-R being used to burn some legally bought indie music is much larger than ever being used to illegally copy the latest Lady Gaga CD, but nevertheless the money goes to this mafia. I would call this 'fined for being guilty of infringement whatever the circumstance' a blind attack on one method of sharing music, and it also negates the second part of your claim since indie artists have never authorized the big labels to collect (and keep) this fine for them.

Re:Its not about the content.

[eldavojohn]

When has RIAA decided for you what you should watch? Sure, if you like bands under the labels that work with RIAA, those labels might go towards more popular music.

Both you and I know that the bands "working with RIAA" are promoted and slammed down our throats. In addition the radio stations that you can listen to are (with the very rare exception of a few I know in Minnesota) pretty much forced to play RIAA only songs. I live in DC and aside from bands like The Bravery that are already on a large label, I have never heard an unsigned local band showcased or even played on the radio. If you were to build a case for the RIAA deciding what you hear, there it is. They are the deciders on who gets played on TV and the Radio. And miffo.swe was pointing out that this fact is why the internet is a thorn in their side.

It doesn't mean they're deciding what you can listen - you're free to go to any local pub, event or even look for indie music on the internet.

You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.

There are a lot websites for non-signed artists to release their music and RIAA has no saying over that since the artists haven't given them permission to do so. You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.

This particular discussion isn't about file sharing, it's about promotion and distribution channels and consumer awareness. The accusations are that the RIAA enjoy limiting consumer awareness. They don't want to lose 20% of their purchases to acts like Joanna Newsom or hundreds of other bands that you might actually like but you'll never know because there's this great system set up to protect you from <evil voice>Something Different!</evil voice> Do you have any idea how difficult it was for me to hear about Matthew Hemerlein despite the fact that I live in DC? Thank god for the internet and the new distribution channels it provides. I agree with miffo.swe that the RIAA is a bit annoyed that I'm going to be sending money directly to labels like Drag City and Afternoon Records instead of the "Big Four."

infringing content

[MancunianMaskMan]

hey, your kitten walking on the piano keyboard was playing a song owned by SonyWarnerEMI. We'll sue the whiskers off him!

Test your /. age by reading the summary...

[kramerd]

After reading the summary (seriously, do this first or this won't work at all), gauge your reaction to the article that you won't be reading to determine how long and for what purposes you read /.

If you are surprised by any of the summary, you must be new here.

If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.

If you mentally insert else statements between each of these lines, you are sleep deprived DBA. Go take a nap.

If you question Eric Goldman's credentials, but haven't done any research to to discredit him, you are a /. troll.

If you just went to research Eric Goldman's credentials so that you could respond with research to discredit him, you are a /. pedent.

If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi.

If you instead thought that discrediting Eric Goldman wouldn't take much effort but that doing so isn't pedantic, you have a valid point, and thus, would be modded down for pointing it out.

If you just thought to yourself 'who is Eric Goldman?,' try reading the summary next time.

If you can remember another /. article that pointed out that a company ended up suing themselves (and losing), so do I.

If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's /. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.

I can has lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your trolling, no way would they sue a kitten. That would be like sueing a grandmother, or a disabled person... oh wait.