YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again

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."

Comments

Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom

[Taco Cowboy]

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

Duality

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Now, revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Google can go ahead and buy Viacom and fire the jack asses that started the suit. Then sell Viacom again.

Re:That's a new one...

[LordLucless]

Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"