YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday April 18, 2013 @11:54AM from the you-lose dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again."

49 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-04-18 12:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the main reason why the MAFIAA cases are still heating the courtrooms around the country is so cheap to sue somebody and so expensive to defend
When the justice system makes it so easy to attack someone and so hard to defend oneself, of course someone gonna abuse it to their own advantage

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-04-18 14:02 · Score: 2
  
  And yet there are those who abandon reason and all available data and conclude that this must be by mistake.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Brothers(and sisters), note yet another angle to all this. Congress can pass a law, and the President can sign it in under a day but it could take 20 years to even start thinking about repealing that same law. I can safely say I'm not alone in thinking this is also by design.
3. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Eskarel · 2013-04-18 17:38 · Score: 2
  
  It's not by mistake, it's by necessity.
  The costs of attacking vs defending are actually pretty similar(in fact I'd suggest that someone like Sony actually spends vastly more in legal fees than most of the people they sue). The major cost difference is the cost of losing, it's much more expensive for someone defending against a lawsuit to lose than it is for someone initiating a lawsuit to lose.
  This is deliberate, by design, and necessary. If you penalize people for losing lawsuits you basically create a world which is worse than the one we're in. Sony can afford to pay a million dollars if they lose a lawsuit, Joe Blogs can't. If you try to only penalize "vexatious" lawsuits and you don't set the burden of proof extremely high then again it's Joe Blogs who does't have a team of lawyers on retainer to wiggle him round the law who loses out.
  Just about the only thing you could do is to put a penalty for losing which is proportional to the amount you can afford to pay, but even that's got some seriously scary consequences. It's pretty much impossible to except in the most extreme of circumstances to prove that someone is acting in bad faith, and given that it's also virtually impossible to penalize bad faith lawsuits without simultaneously penalizing good faith lawsuits.
  I know there's a sub section of Slashdot who thinks that all lawsuits are bad, but you don't really want to live in a world without any, at least not one populated by humans.
4. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-04-18 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  "It's not by mistake, it's by necessity."
  This would all be true ONLY if the copyright trolls could not name hundreds to thousands of Does in a single lawsuit.
  
  Granted, judges have become increasingly wary of this tactic. Nevertheless, they never should have allowed the joining of the suits anyway. There really isn't any legal basis for it. There is one half-assed theory they have pushed for justification, but that's all it is: half-assed.
5. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  The ruling in the lower courts is trouble some. Because the Judge defended YouTube, saying that the company or web site, did not have anything to do with its users posting, nor does YouTube endorse posting, infringing content. However Viacom and the other Big Media "cartels" may decide to go after the "USERS" of YouTube that posted the content.
  YouTube has done nothing to protect its users by saying to a Judge "don't look at us", But YouTube has never had a problem follow DMCA letters to a T, or complaints over possible infringement, and remove the content without really investigating if users videos warrant copyright infringement.
  I am not sure why this is a big deal to begin with having said that. There are and will be new sites to host videos that may actually try to defend there users, and not kiss ass every time they receive a DMCA take down notice. This is not a win for the user......
6. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by hairyfeet · 2013-04-18 21:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually its even worse than that, the DMCA is so badly tilted towards the copyright holders its beyond rigged. For example they can send as many takedowns as they want, no matter how tenuous their connection because there is ZERO penalty. This is why only huge corps like Google can really do shit against DMCAs because they can just spam them without penalty.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by chrismcb · 2013-04-18 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  .. is so cheap to sue somebody and so expensive to defend
  Well in general the cost to sue someone is relatively the same cost to defend. But when one side is richer, they can outlast the poor side. No matter who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant.
8. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by drinkypoo · 2013-04-19 01:23 · Score: 2
  
  It's not by mistake, it's by necessity.
  Well, no. Only because we have a deliberately baroque legal system do we even need so many lawyers and so much legal process. We could get done everything the legal system needs to do with much less fanfare and expenditure if lawyer were not the larval form of politician.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by bryan1945 · 2013-04-20 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say the costs are much different, but rather the resources behind the accuser and defendant are vastly different. RIAA vs. Grandma comes to mind, though I think there was MPAA vs. Dead Guy at some point.
  There are plenty of other deficiencies, of course, but not having access to a public defense attorney for civil actions is an automatic kick to the groin to the average person vs. a corporation/trade group/etc. Not that I'm advocating civil public defense attorneys.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
10. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Eskarel · 2013-04-21 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. In any legal system you're going to have two parties who don't agree on what the outcome ought to be and if you penalize someone for trying to get justice when they acted in good faith you're always going to crush the little guy. It doesn't really matter whether you have lawyers or some sort of perfect judge listening the arguments, it's always going to come down to a scenario where people act in good faith but are wrong. If we punish those people it will stifle legitimate grievances and if we don't we'll always have a disproportionate cost incurred by the defendant because they have more to lose.
11. Re:Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom by Eskarel · 2013-04-21 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  There's some gray area there.
  Getting the identity of whoever is responsible for an internet account is not a criminal charge and really only requires probably cause. There's some justification, given the similarity of the nature of the evidence and the relatively low burden of proof required that lawsuits for the purpose of identification can and should be joined. We don't really want to waste the courts time with a thousand instances of "we have this IP downloading this file at this time" "Ok, here's a court order to find out who it is", you'd really get no opportunity to test the evidence at all at that point.
  Lawsuits for damages against multiple plaintiffs however should be illegal unless the plaintiffs were acting in collusion, which you'd then have to prove(for a criminal example it would potentially be Ok to charge a group of people for a group activity like a lynching. You'd have to individually prove the people were there, but it seems idiotic to prove what happened a dozen times over. File sharing isn't like that though.
Duality by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 12:29 · Score: 5, Informative

So posting a copyrighted video on youtube does not endanger google but posting a link to a copyrighted video on youtube will get you millions in fines, confiscated domain, and possible prison time? They haven't stuck it to the cartel hard enough yet.
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by UltraZelda64 · 2013-04-18 12:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Apparently the cunt just gets off to forcing Slashdot visitors to either back out of the article or hold down the space bar for all eternity until the retarded spam message is finally past. I'm getting sick of it myself, it would be nice if they would add a spam filter that automatically flags all posts containing both the words "luser" and "hosts" that are posted by an AC. I usually go back and don't even consider reading any more comments if I come across one of these--but this time was the exception since I figured it's about time I join in and bitch about this douchebag spammer. Slashdot could really use a "block" feature to allow users to block this asshole without blocking all the "legitimate" Anonymous Cowards out there.
Now, revenge by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 12:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Now Google can go ahead and buy Viacom and fire the jack asses that started the suit. Then sell Viacom again.
Cool, now lets apply this brand of thinking to... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 12:40 · Score: 0

MegaUpload and MegaVideo!
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by lucm · 2013-04-18 13:08 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I really don't get these. I can understand the motivation behind stupid racist shit (think giggling 17 year old boys/men in their mom's basements), but I really don't get these. They're not funny or offensive to anyone, and they don't advertise anything.
What's the point, other than extreme OCD and insanity?
A few explanations:
1) Those posts are not from people. They are from buggy bots.
2) Those posts are cleverly encrypted messages sent to/from secret agents (or terrorist or pedophiles or bronies), hiding secrets in plain sights.
3) Those posts are ASCII-encoded mp3s and Slashdot is used as the backend storage for muzofon.com
4) Those posts don't exist, you are hallucinating.

--
lucm, indeed.
That's a new one... by mooingyak · 2013-04-18 13:33 · Score: 2

Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again.
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
1. Re:That's a new one... by LordLucless · 2013-04-18 13:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
2. Re:That's a new one... by mooingyak · 2013-04-18 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"
  I'll buy that interpretation, but it didn't jump out to me.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
3. Re:That's a new one... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2013-04-18 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
  It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
4. Re:That's a new one... by mooingyak · 2013-04-18 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
  It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
  Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
5. Re:That's a new one... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2013-04-18 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
  Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
6. Re:That's a new one... by twistofsin · 2013-04-18 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
7. Re:That's a new one... by dkf · 2013-04-18 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)
  It's a pity you didn't mix it the other way. "Copyright cartel" would have worked just fine.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
8. Re:That's a new one... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2013-04-19 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
  Yeah.
  
  And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.
  
  And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
9. Re:That's a new one... by cpghost · 2013-04-19 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Content maximalists?
  I'm sure the poster meant "copyright maximalist", a.k.a. "copyright taliban", "copyright extremist", etc...
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 13:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

Or just collapse comments that are longer than X number of lines. Then again, I don't think the slashdot staff has much time due to the large number of Bitcoin articles they need to get for the site.
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by Dunbal · 2013-04-18 14:19 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Or quite possibly, these posts are from secret robotic agents who are exchanging ascii-encoded mp3's that when played the notes translate to encypted terrorist plans/naked children in compromising positions/ponies. Or perhaps I am the one that is hallucinating.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Need to litigate *with prejudice* by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 15:49 · Score: 2

IANAL, (and not even American), but if I understand US law correctly, filing *with prejudice* is one way of getting the re-appeal, re-appeal, re-appeal process to come to a quick and grinding halt in a permanent fashion. An upper court judge supervises the findings of a lower court judge, and the defendants must put up a very resounding defence that satisfies both. If both judges are satisfied, then its 'one ruling to judge them all'. There are no grounds for appeal, and final really means final. Usually the supreme court won't look at trivialities, and since they swing a big stick, if it actually came down to them, they could strike down laws that protect the plaintiff (they could wind up a lot worse off, until the legislative branch gets bought off again and passes more laws, but they have to pass the sniff test or the SCOTUS could declare them unconstitutional and then its rinse-repeat).
Re:Cool, now lets apply this brand of thinking to. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 16:14 · Score: 0

Sure it was. Sure it was.
Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2013-04-19 01:22 · Score: 2

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-19 01:46 · Score: 0

All we really need is a reduction in the amount of comment shown before the "see the rest of this comment" link comes into play. The limit is far too generous at present.
Re:Too bad /. can't win against abusers... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-19 02:09 · Score: 0

Actually they have tried to take some action, there's a "two few characters per line" filter that prevented me from posting this as a comment in another of my own journals.
ACs are punished enough, there are times one simply can't log in. Don't throw a grenade into a room because one of the 40 people in there stabbed someone.
Re:Cool, now lets apply this brand of thinking to. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-19 03:55 · Score: 0

Yup, and the VCR was also intentionally marketed for piracy. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 03:08 · Score: 0

Keep embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.
1. Re:Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-20 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Hello Paul.
Jeremiah Cornelius: Grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-25 02:08 · Score: 0

You're embarassing yourself Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 since you posted that using your registered username by mistake (instead of your usual anonymous coward submissions by the 100's the past 2-3 months now on slashdot) giving away it's you spamming this forums almost constantly, just as you have in the post I just replied to.
Replying more than a week later... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-26 04:42 · Score: 0

Paul, you fail it. Your skill is not enough.