backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by AntDX316.. on Jun 26 at 4:05 PM

Viacom plans to appeal

The battle between music and movie studios, internet users, and ISPs has raged for years. The content producers claim they are fighting to protect their copyrights while major web properties like Google's YouTube say that they are doing all they can to prevent pirated videos and content from being posted on their sites.

In 2007, media giant Viacom sued Google and YouTube alleging that YouTube knowingly allowed pirated video to be posted online violating copyright. Viacom sought damages of $1 billion. The legal battle raged on and in July of 2009, a judge in the case dismissed some of the damage claims Viacom alleged in the case. The judge ruled that damages were not available for content produced outside America. In March 2010, it was discovered that after the suit was filed Viacom managers had still been uploading video to YouTube and some had even tried to hide their tracks.

Reuters reports that Google and YouTube have now prevailed in the Viacom copyright suit. A federal judge in Manhattan has thrown the Viacom suit out saying that it would be improper to hold Google and YouTube liable under copyright law for merely having "general awareness" that illegal videos might be posted on the site.

Judge Louis Stanton wrote in his 30-page ruling, "Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. The provider need not monitor or seek out facts indicating such activity."

Viacom plans to appeal the verdict to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and calls the ruling "fundamentally flawed." Viacom alleges that the decision doesn't reflect recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions or the intent behind the current copyright law. 
Reuters reports that Google has argued it is protected under the Safe Harbor provision of the digital copyright law that limits the liability of ISPs and providers.

Analyst Benjamin Schachter from Broadpoint AmTech said, "Certainly for Google, there's been so many regulatory and legal negative headlines about them, so to see them on the winning side of something will certainly be a positive."

Judge Stanton noted that the Safe Harbor notification provision works efficiently in this case. Viacom notified YouTube on a Friday in 2007 of 100,000 infringing videos and "virtually all" of the videos were off the site by the following Monday.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Positively shameful
By Iaiken on 6/24/2010 10:40:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In March 2010, it was discovered that after the suit was filed Viacom managers had still been uploading video to YouTube and some had even tried to hide their tracks .


The lawsuit should have been thrown out purely on these grounds.

Google and youtube have been diligent in the removal of copyrighted videos. It is NOT their job to police their site to enforce other peoples copyrights. There is literally no way for them to do so without a person looking at every new video, identifying the source and checking to see if a copyright for it is still holds sway.

Viacom can go suck a big fat cock. Get off your asses and enforce your own effing copyrights you lazy prats.




RE: Positively shameful
By reader1 on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Positively shameful
By Solandri on 6/24/2010 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
quote:
In March 2010, it was discovered that after the suit was filed Viacom managers had still been uploading video to YouTube and some had even tried to hide their tracks .

The lawsuit should have been thrown out purely on these grounds.

No, it's better this way. If it had been thrown out, it would've been a mere footnote in the newspapers. By having the court actually come to a decision, it sets a precedent which can be cited in other cases and will influence other decisions.


RE: Positively shameful
By BZDTemp on 6/24/2010 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
If it as simple as described then I'd say there should be criminal charges. It sounds to me that Viacom deliberately tried to frame google in order to get money through court. If that is not an attempt to pervert justice and commit fraud then what is?

Imagine if you for some reason has become tired of your neighbor. You sneak into his house and hide an old broken laptop of yours and perhaps a few other things, call the cops on him claiming the stole the stuff and also sue him for damages, distress and so on. Surely that would be criminal.


P2P Applications?
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/2010 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Judge Louis Stanton wrote in his 30-page ruling, "Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. The provider need not monitor or seek out facts indicating such activity."


With the treats of making it a crime to create P2P programs...Can this kind of ruling apply to the writers of P2P software?

Example: "I wrote the program to share university documents between students on campus so as to reduce the internet traffic from the school. But, I can't control what people do with it after its published."




RE: P2P Applications?
By smackababy on 6/24/2010 12:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't aware it was illegal to make P2P software.


RE: P2P Applications?
By KillerNoodle on 6/24/2010 12:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the upcoming Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement the RIAA may have scored its biggest victory -- making it a felony crime to develop P2P engines that become used to distribute infringed content.


http://www.dailytech.com/New+Suit+Against+Limewire...


RE: P2P Applications?
By skeep on 6/24/2010 10:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Call me old fashioned. But I prefer FTP any day over the resource munching P2P, let the servers take the load.


RE: P2P Applications?
By Akrovah on 6/24/2010 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
That was the general agruament of Kaza and Napster IIRC. The programs were made to share and spread the work of independant musicians and people began uploading copyrighted works instead.

The argument failed.


Nice!
By wiz220 on 6/24/2010 10:32:14 AM , Rating: 5
Nice to see a judge that isn't in the pocket of the music/movie industry!




you tube
By MACDONALDBANK1 on 6/24/2010 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
Check out GETTY and HITLER @ YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QnT5t-qxIE




!!** YEAH!
By quiksilvr on 6/24/2010 10:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
That's all I really wanted to say.




By BurnItDwn on 6/24/2010 10:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see that every now and again, common sense prevails.




Yet again
By masamasa on 6/24/2010 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
Another useless lawsuit shot down.




Ooops
By bugnguts on 6/24/2010 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Poor Viacom. This is what happens when you make one of your house of cards lawsuits against someone who has money to hire a defense team. Thank you Google.

I want to also take a moment and thank all the Brits out there for paying taxes on TVs and radios every year. Though BBC is not unbiased it is much less so than the media giants here in the states and headline news for a day or even weeks is not Brittney Spears shaving her head or Tiger Woods infidelity.

Silly media giants, every empire grows, reaches its zenith and then fades away. At least let your memory be a good one and stop trying to squeeze consumer wallets so tight that it forces Lincoln's nose to bleed on our pennies.




$1 Billion
By AntDX316 on 6/26/2010 4:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
$1 Billion, Viacom wins that everyone working for viacom is covered financially for life




This is spooky
By SunAngel on 6/24/2010 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Viacom plans to appeal the verdict to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and calls the ruling " fundamentally flawed ."


Doesn't this sound exactly like many of pro-copyright infringers here on DailyTech. I mean the term 'flawed' is quite prevelent on this site when someone is up against the wall and refuses to accept what is fundamentally right.

Hi Viacom, I know your here.




you tube is great
By MACDONALDBANK1 on 6/24/2010 2:25:05 PM , Rating: 1
Check out GETTY and HITLER @ YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/user/grantmacdonald1#p/a/f/...

Check out GETTYMOVIE … Getty/Hitler trilogy

http://www.youtube.com/user/grantmacdonald#p/a/u/1...

An employee at the Getty owned Pierre Hotel in New York City wondered why there were so many Germans being hired and staying at The Pierre during World War II. He called the FBI and the FBI charged J.P. Getty with Espionage, FBI File 100.1202, June 26, 1940. 43,000 people were killed in the UK while J. Paul Getty was in Berlin still shipping oil to Hitler five months before Pearl Harbor; December 7, 1941. The mother of J.P. Getty was German. 2003 documents declassified by UK Warfare Ministry reveal that in Oct. 1941 the pro-Nazi Jean Paul Getty employed and lodged Nazis at his Pierre Hotel in New York City; Nazis who were involved in spying on and sabotaging Allied Forces’ war production plants. As aristocrats with treasures of art were executed -- beginning in 1933 -- with the outbreak of war; Getty assiduously added to his vast collection with the Nazis. The Rembrandt of Marten Looten hangs in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The Gainsborough of Christie purchased in 1938 is at The Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_9?url=sea...




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki