Slashdot Mirror
Embedding of Copyright Infringing Video Not (Necessarily) a Crime
Social bookmarking site myVidster was the target of a copyright infringement case because it allowed its users to embed videos from other sites on its pages. Some of the videos infringed upon various copyrights, and the plaintiff in the case was granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster in 2011. Now, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the injunction, saying that merely embedding copyright-infringing videos hosted elsewhere does not necessarily contribute to the infringement. Judge Posner wrote in the opinion (PDF),
"myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment. By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not 'transmitting or communicating' them. ... Is myVidster doing anything different? ... myVidster doesn't touch the data stream, which flows directly from one computer to another, neither being owned or operated by myVidster."
However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.
>By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not 'transmitting or communicating' them.
Now, if we can only get the Judge to see the same about torrents.
How surprising and pleasant in these times to encounter a judge who both cares what the law says and is able to reason!
Of course, a link isn't a form of media so they will abuse this sort of stupidity in the courts.
Even though they may have won in this, they will continue.
They took down Megaupload illegally, after all. What makes you think they will care about this site? Especially if it gets big.
They'll just crush it or wreck the owners life, or both.
Copyright infringement is not normally considered a crime. It is a tort. People that don't understand the difference between criminal and civil law probably should not be writing headlines for stories about the legal system.
By embedding someone else's video to Vidster, they are sucking someone else's bandwidth & increasing their hosting costs. I'm surprised the other host didn't just block vidster.com
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Posner's opinion seems to say that while someone uploading a video is guilty of copyright infringement, the viewers who merely streamed the video are not.
There is only one case I'm aware of where any company attempted to sue someone for simply watching a stream: the UFC lawsuit against Greenfeedz users. In this article, an attorney was skeptical that such claims would hold up, and Posner's judicial opinion seems to provide strong backing for throwing out those lawsuits.
It is not clear to me whether downloading a video (as opposed to streaming it) would be considered making "a copy of the copyrighted video" under the Copyright Act. Has this ever been discussed in any other court case in the United States? Except for the UFC incident, I'm not aware of any lawsuits filed against end users for downloading alone.
myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment
So is ThePirateBay.
I'm certain I'm taking a less than popular position on this issue, but the example they gave, of the New Yorker publishing locations of performances, and comparing that to publishing a computer's IP address, isn't entirely a fair comparison.
The New Yorker is publishing locations of those performances, true, but the performances and their venues don't generally infringe on copyright.
Deliberately publishing locations where practically all content is essentially known to be infringing, and any non-infringing content found there is largely circumstantial, more than a matter of general practice or intended purpose, is arguably an entirely different kettle of fish.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's not what they're doing though. They host a bulletin board where individual users post pointers to videos stored on other sites.
If I stick a note on your bulletin board telling my partner in crime which bank and when, does that make YOU a bank robber?
Excellent point!
The answer of course is yes, it does make you a criminal... If your bulletin board specifically encourages bank robbers to use it for this purpose. You become an accessory, or you become guilty of inciting, or something of the kind, depending on jurisdiction and particulars.
If I stick a note on your bulletin board telling my partner in crime which bank and when, does that make YOU a bank robber?
The answer CAN be yes, if that bulletin board is used substantially or with intent for that purpose. PB was substantially used for such infringing purposes, for example. In real life it would be no different. You can be found guilty of being an accessory to the crime.
So I think this shows exactly the opposite of what you wanted it to show. Intent matters, with the law, even though Slashdotters for some reason like to believe it doesn't.
And if it's just a bulletin board that says post funny stuff here?
I took a look at the site in question. I didn't see any suggestion that copyright infringement was wanted.
I wonder if they will be able to use the same argument...
http://www.google.com/search?q=posner+apple
The answer CAN be yes, if that bulletin board is used substantially or with intent for that purpose.
We can't ban technologies or websites just because they're abused "substantially"; that would be ridiculous. The only part that makes sense here is the actual intent. If the intent of the website was to infringe upon copyright, then I would agree. But I'd say banning things for everyone just because they're often abused is draconian.
Intent matters, with the law
The number of times something is abused really doesn't have anything to do with intent.
However, the door is not shut on this issue: "Flava may be entitled to additional preliminary injunctive relief as well, if it can show, as it has not shown yet, that myVidster’s service really does contribute significantly to infringement of Flava’s copyrights." If myVidster was actively encouraging the sharing, hosting the videos itself, or profiting from their showing, the ruling likely would have been different.
So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
So how has Sidereel.com survived? It's a website (based in CA) that lists legit links to shows but their traffic is driven by all of the links to pirated content that they let people add.
In that case, so does Slashdot. After all, users can post links and URLs in messages, which could point to videos under copyright that are not authorized to be published. Slashdot profits from these posts from their banner ads, and even encourages users to make posts in general.
As you say, slashdot is driven by such links even though they are the far extreme minority of posts, and despite the fact you, myself, the parent, and 99% of the people posting here do not even care about such links let alone use them or post them, you feel this should make Slashdot liable.
So embedding infringing content is fine, but linking to it is a capital offence?