TechCrunch:Expanded DMCA Still Has Limits

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, in a blow to the content industry, the Ninth Circuit granted Veoh a pyrrhic victory against Universal Music Group and clarified the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions for online service providers. By adopting a position taken by the Second Circuit in Viacom v. YouTube, the decision harmonized the law in two intellectually influential jurisdictions and set the standard in New York and California, national hubs for content creation and technological innovation. Going forward, tech startups will have more room to innovate while facing decreased risk of crippling financial liability. An article by two IP lawyers published today in TechCrunch simplifies and explains the scope of safe harbor protection in light of these rulings.

Comments

Pyrrhic victory

[93 Escort Wagon]

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[Anonymous Coward]

In the link:

Veoh has once again beaten the record companies; in fact it has beaten them in every round, only to have been forced out of business by the attorneys fees it expended to do so.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[houstonbofh]

Yes. It does. Exactly. Only way it could be a better example is if there were shot after winning... They won the lawsuit that drove them out of business.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[Kjella]

Pyrrhus was fighting the Romans and despite inflicting heavier losses and winning the battles the Romans had far more men to resupply with which was why these "victories" would be his undoing. Veoh won, but still lost because they ran out of money while their opponent had much deeper pockets. How could it get any more appropriate than that?

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[Warhawke]

Pyrrhus was an aggressor against Rome who spent exorbitant sums of money to achieve small victories that ultimately led to his losing the war. Veoh was not an aggressor and was bankrupted before the victory could be achieved. In fact, the RIAA and MPAA could be said to be Pyrrhic victors considering how much they spend in litigation without any profit from collection. The proper expression here would be "hollow victory."

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes. It does. Exactly."

Not really.

A "Pyrrhic Victory" is a victory that is questionable because of all the resulting loss at the same time. Arguably, the situation with Veoh is different because it's a "victory," but only after the victor is already dead. That's neither Pyrrhic or even a real victory.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[crutchy]

maybe they meant "phallic" victory... men with big dicks dominating men with small dicks

"Alright everyone, back to the pile."

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[shentino]

Veoh was doomed the moment they wound up in the RIAA's crosshairs.

They were going bankrupt either way, so they decided to go down fighting.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[Attila Dimedici]

While you are correct that Pyrrhus was, more or less, the aggressor against Rome (he initially began his campaign against Rome in defense of a city which Rome attacked), the term pyrrhic victory refers to any victory in which the winner of the battle ends up losing the war.

Re:Pyrrhic victory

[davester666]

Yeah, I don't think this ruling will prevent the exact same thing happening to pretty much any startup that isn't backed by a billionaire or two.

It doesn't have enough limits

[fustakrakich]

Only complete abolishment can bring that about...

Re:It doesn't have enough limits

[KiloByte]

Until recently, owning a person used to be legal. Today, it is legal to own both ideas (patents) and culture (copyright). Let's hope this changes rather swiftly -- I'm quite sure it will change eventually.

Re:It doesn't have enough limits

[asmkm22]

It will change once the world economy grinds to a super-monopoly, where all major industries around the world are dominated by one or two players, much like the ISP situation in most of the U.S.. Right now, companies aren't complaining because they have the golden egg laying goose that is China, but even that plan is starting to unravel due to China having such a huge disparity between the rich and poor, with no real middle class to speak of.

Once that happens, either laws like DMCA and IP will have to be scrapped just so growth can continue, or the world economy will contract back into more regional entities like they were 20 years ago; connected but independent. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next revolution in internet connectivity revolve around a method for encrypting or limiting traffic to a physical region of the world, in an effort to segment things.

Re:It doesn't have enough limits

[Kjella]

Once that happens, either laws like DMCA and IP will have to be scrapped just so growth can continue

Last century it was about who owns the factories and those that tried to wrest those from capitalists and corporations into the hands of the people are reviled socialists and communists. This century it'll be about who owns the bits and bytes and I expect the same warm welcome of any IP reform. Oh sure, different companies want different IP laws that best suit their business model but 99% of all campaign contributions to Congress want them in some form, even Red Hat probably prefers the GPL via copyright as opposed to no IP law at all. If there is to be a reform, I think it would have to be a popular revolt that most people simply no longer consider those rights valid.

Re:It doesn't have enough limits

[DNS-and-BIND]

Whaaa? Been watching too much MSNBC, I see. China has a *huge* middle class, equal to the entire population of the USA. Derp, derp....

Legal system is broken, NOT DMCA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fix the legal system, DMCA is completely fine.

And actually act on your written laws instead of selectively ignoring things.
A law is a law period, it isn't a guideline.

Once those 2 things are done, harmony will be achieved.
Only kidding, it will never be achieved.
The media industry at large has already said they would bring everyone down with them kicking and screaming rather than adopt fair media consumption systems.

Re:Legal system is broken, NOT DMCA.

[shentino]

Even if the DMCA is complete bullshit, proper, thorough, and EQUAL enforcement of the laws we already have on the books will do ten times as good as writing new ones.

Right now, "The rich and politically well connected possess immunity" is an implied part of the constitution.

If the law were enforced as written most of the elite would be rotting in prison.

Re:Legal system is broken, NOT DMCA.

[AmiMoJo]

Move to Europe. You would be mad to innovate in the US these days because some parasite will inevitably she you for patent/copyright infringement.

Re:Legal system is broken, NOT DMCA.

[xenobyte]

Personally I think that DMCA and the IP laws are perfectly fine..

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but with valid DMCA legal activity being less than 5% of all DMCA legal activity, there's something seriously wrong.

The DMCA has been abused for almost everything, from censorship to harassment. Almost none of the DMCA takedown notices have been valid and yet most have been honored (and usually met with counterclaims), wasting even more time (and thus money).

Nobody bothers to actually provide proof of ownership of the IP in question, or even to specify it in details as required. They just say "DMCA" and the ISP folds, usually without even considering anything. This is probably due to the possibility of being on the receiving end of the draconian punishments the DMCA offers.

Wat???

[interval1066]

Anyone else read the summary and say "...what...?"