YouTube law fight 'threatens net'

BBC News -- UK ^ | 27 May, 2008 | Beeb

[brityank]

YouTube law fight 'threatens net'

YouTube is owned by search giant Google

A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.

Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.

Viacom says it has identified 150,000 unauthorised clips on YouTube.

In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web.

The search giant's legal team also maintained that YouTube had been faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that they responded properly to claims of infringement.

In papers submitted to a Manhattan court, Google said it and YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".

Viacom disagreed that either firm had lived up to that standard and said that they had done "little or nothing" to stop infringement.

Abuse

In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom claimed YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its website and viewed tens of thousands of times.

It said it had identified more than 150,000 such abuses which included clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged.

The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".

Viacom, which is asking for damages for the unauthorised viewing of its programming, said its tally represented only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights.

"The availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants' business plan," Viacom said.

Viacom originally started legal action last year and filed an amended version last month. Earlier this month Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone told Dow Jones: "When we filed this lawsuit, we not only served our own interests, we served the interests of everyone who owns copyrights they want protected."

He added: "We cannot tolerate any form of piracy by anyone, including YouTube...they cannot get away with stealing our products."

For its part, Google said the only way the legal action would be resolved was in court.

Google's vice president of content partnerships David Eun has said: "We're going all the way to the Supreme Court. We've been very clear about it."

After the legal action was first started, YouTube launched an anti-piracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.

[brityank]

Hadn't seen anything of this posted. I don't have a problem with the original, limited copyright -- but the expansions placed thereon by our Lords and Masters for the benefit of the corporations just gives foreign thieves more access as they have no restrictions, legal or moral.

[mc5cents]

The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".

Wait a minute! Did someone move a decimal point over a few places here? 1.5 Billion! Naaaa.

[brityank]

LOL. What an enormous waste of time that would be. Then again, it could be a true figure — after all every pooblik skrewell teechur needed their own copy plus one for each stoodint!

[unixfox]

Wait a minute! Did someone move a decimal point over a few places here? 1.5 Billion! Naaaa.

And how many people are there on earth? Narrowing it down a little, how many understand English, how many really believe in the global warming scare, how many people really like Al Gore that much?

Narrows it down to about 1.5 humanoids I'd say.

[Redcloak]

The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".

Now we know what Algore's been doing with all of his spare time.

[Principled]

I think Viacom may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Google isn’t a single mom being sued. Google has resources.

[Southerngl]

For the life of me, I will NEVER understand these corporations. THe whole Napster thing ticked me off too. Most people that would have bought your stuff, probably ‘sampled’ it before.

[joebuck]

"Google has resources."

So did Napster. It was fighting this exact same issue and lost.

[Bobalu]

It is completely within the law for these shows and clips to be posted and viewed at YouTube.

The DMCA provides a ‘safe harbor’ for forums like YouTube.

YouTube is ONLY required to respond to DMCA violation notifications from the content owners that copyrighted material has been posted. Once the offending material has been identified then YouTube is required to delete it. It is the copyright owners responsibility to find the material...YouTube has no requirement to police their content and indeed they weaken their DMCA protection if they do actively search and delete material on their own.

Big Media corporations would love to have the safe harbor rules deleted....they could shut down usenet providers if they could just get rid of this pesky provision.

[brityank]

For your Tech Ping list.

[Principled]

Napster didn’t have near the resources joebuck - not saying that will make a difference, but these types are so used to having foes buckle irrespective of who’s right.

Google has at its core the freedom of the web. I don’t think they’ll take this too well.

just sayin’...

[joebuck]

"Napster didn’t have near the resources joebuck"

Napster had 100 million of venture capital behind it at the time of the lawsuit and was able to buy the best defense money can buy. Wasn't David Boise their lawyer? The same lawyer used by the DNC for the litigation that erupted in Florida and the USSC following the Bush/Gore election?.

[Principled]

I won’t argue with you joebuck - i’m only saying that google’s wealth and their desire to avoid losing control of their business model will mean that they’ll put a lot into this - more than money, but time - years and years and years of litigation. They will go on offense -

They’ve called down the thunder IMO.

[ShadowAce]

[festus]

That was my thought too.

[brityank]

They’ve called down the thunder IMO.

I hope you're right -- unfortunately we peons are stuck behind the fence as our 'rights' are not the same as the corporations or fedgovs. They've grabbed powers that the Founders could only dream of.

[supercat]

For the life of me, I will NEVER understand these corporations. THe whole Napster thing ticked me off too. Most people that would have bought your stuff, probably ‘sampled’ it before.

The RIAA's fear wasn't that Napster would let people sample RIAA music, but rather that it would become a practical means for people to sample non-RIAA music. Even though the RIAA could only sue over the former, having no authority over the latter, the latter threat was by far the larger. After all, if musicians can get themselves heard without going through the RIAA, they'll have no reason to sign contracts that give them pennies on the dollar.

[antiRepublicrat]

The copyright cartel (Big Media) basically used their power to write the DMCA to their advantage. But network providers also flexed their muscle and got a small bit (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) in there to protect themselves. I’m sure the copyright cartel always resented that being in there.

The DMCA, brought to you by a Republican Congress and President Clinton.

[Still Thinking]

Now we know what Algore's been doing with all of his spare time.

If every one of his fat cells downloaded the crockumentary individually, it STILL wouldn't be 1.5 billion. (Course they're probably using standard studio accounting math)

[Golden Eagle]

A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.

"Internet freedom" isn't the law, copyright protection is. Google should lose, and the penalty should be to pay back the copyright holders any and all profit they've made off infringement.