backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Jul 10 at 7:58 AM

Google attorney is pleased by the ruling

Google has found itself accused of copyright violations and copyright infringement on many occasions. The majority of copyright infringement accusations come from its ownership of YouTube where large amounts of video are posted by users.

In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube and parent Google for $1 billion alleging that YouTube was allowing the piracy of content owned by Viacom. Reuters reports that the same year a suit was filed against Google and YouTube by the UK Football Association Premier League (FAPL).

A judge in the U.S. has
dismissed some of the damages claims brought against Google in the FAPL suit. The FAPL argued that works made outside the U.S. were exempt from the registration requirements of the U.S. Copyright Act.

The judge presiding over the case ruled that damages were not available for any works produced outside the U.S. that weren't registered in America. However, the judge noted an exception for live broadcasts.

The judge agreed that the plaintiffs could -- if they win in court -- seek statutory damages on infringement for live events. The plaintiffs may also seek reimbursement for lost profits and disgorgement of profits if they win in court.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Louis Solomon told Reuters, "It's more important to get the live broadcast covered because our lead plaintiff, that is their whole business. The class is hugely benefited. Concert promoters, boxing promoters, French tennis, Scottish soccer -- all of that now gets protected with statutory damages."

The ruling by the judge on the case means that the plaintiffs could potentially recover billions of dollars if they prevail on the majority of their claims. Google attorney Adam Barea said that the charges in the case were "baseless from the start."

Barea said in a statement, "We are very pleased with the court's decision and will continue to vigorously defend against the remaining baseless claims in the case."



Comments     Threshold


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

Meh...
By AndMatt on 7/8/2009 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 5
People will always try to squeeze money out of those who have money. Google seems to be on everyones radar as of late. I will cry is the Sherman Antitrust Act is brought in because of Google's search dominance. As for copyright violations, we need to revamp our copyright system, it is antiquated and needs to be updated along with our patent system.




RE: Meh...
By mfed3 on 7/8/2009 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 5
agreed. the amount of money that these baseless cases bleed out of companies every day is just ridiculous.

the patent system doesnt even protect anyone defensively anymore. instead its used offensively as everyone with the cash just puts out thousands of random patents a year in hopes to sue someone in the future.


RE: Meh...
By AndMatt on 7/8/2009 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I believe the best defensive is a good offense but these patents are getting ridiculous!


RE: Meh...
By ClownPuncher on 7/8/2009 12:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
It is very much The Age of the Con Man. Decrease the litigation to increase the peace!


RE: Meh...
By bighairycamel on 7/8/2009 5:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People will always try to squeeze money out of those who have money.
Nice choice of words; "Squeezing" is an amusing pun for a group called the FAP League...


RE: Meh...
By marvdmartian on 7/9/2009 10:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be easier (and much more fun) to just get rid of the lawyers??? ;)


I dunno
By Fanatical Meat on 7/8/2009 12:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
If I were paid or held some kind of contract for a TV performance that was being aired on youtube without getting my cut I would be pissed. Everyone seems to assume google operates for free but they make a HUGE amount of money in web ads. Thus my content is drawing people to ads that I do not recieve any pay for.




RE: I dunno
By AntiM on 7/8/2009 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Google/YT has tried to negotiate revenue sharing deals with most of these people (Viacom in particular). Google doesn't actually make a lot of profit with YouTube, as a matter of fact, I don't think it has actually made a profit since Google bought it. I would love to see Google prevail on this. These media companies are blinded by their own greed.

People do have a right to be compensated for the content they create, but how much? It's not like YT is steaming HD, full screen video with surround sound; it's rather limited quality so these companies shouldn't expect to be compensated as if it were broadcast quality.


RE: I dunno
By bhieb on 7/8/2009 1:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not like YT is steaming HD, full screen video with surround sound; it's rather limited quality so these companies shouldn't expect to be compensated as if it were broadcast quality.


Since when, or why should, quality play into infringement. If it is viewable and I say watch an entire Seinfeld episode on YouTube it is not like I'd say hey good episode I'll buy the DVD now to have a better pictures. Some examples may be given where that might be the case, but very few videos do I want to re-view in higher quality.

And your argument of them being greedy is just shortsighted on your end. It is their content we all agree they OWN it. As such if they want to charge large amounts that YouTube is unwilling to pay, then YouTube should not be showing it. If I carve a stick figure and put it on ebay for $400,000,000 are you allowed to just come steal it because it's value was obviously too high?


RE: I dunno
By keith524 on 7/8/2009 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
Google removes stuff all the time for copyright infringement. All a company has to do is ask them to remove it. This suit only seems like it would be valid if Google refused to remove copyrighted material after they had been asked to remove it.


RE: I dunno
By Fanatical Meat on 7/8/2009 10:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well lets just assume that all the broadcast companies have already requested all thier works be removed and if they haven't I just did it for them. Once again put yourself in the owners position, can you really say you wouldn't mind me taking your car so I can start a taxi business when you are not using it? I promise I'll give it back once you notice its missing and ask me to return it. I just want to collect some fares but I don't want to buy a cab to do it.....


HATE
By Innocent Hawk on 7/8/2009 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
I hate Viacom so much.

They have Youtube take down videos that don't even belong to them in the first place.

A perfect example is that Viacom had them take down "Meet the Scout", a video made by Valve. There is not one iota of content in that video that belongs to Viacom.

Stupid pricks.




RE: HATE
By Innocent Hawk on 7/8/2009 3:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention that the one they removed was from Valve's OFFICIAL CHANNEL.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Valve&view=vid...

See? No meet the scout anywhere, and the bookmark I once had for the video said Viacom had them take it down. Makes me so angry.


RE: HATE
By tmouse on 7/10/2009 7:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
I do not know why they would remove if that one and leave the others if had no infringing content. If Valve bothered to ask it would have probably been reversed if in fact the removal itself was not a mistake on YouTubes part. It seems Machinima's version is still up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaE-_GDbmQ&feature...


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













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