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

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
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.....

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki