The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110617044727/http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20008636-261.html
advertisement
June 23, 2010 1:33 PM PDT

Google defeats Viacom in landmark copyright case

Google CEO Eric Schmidt's side prevailed over Philippe Dauman's Viacom in this important copyright case.

U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton, overseeing the longtime copyright fight between Viacom and Google over YouTube, on Wednesday granted summary judgment for the search company.

"The court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement," Google said on its site.

"The decision follows established judicial consensus," Google continued, "that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online."

Viacom, parent company of Paramount Pictures and MTV, indicated that it plans to continue to fight.

"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)," Viacom said in a statement. "We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible."

Viacom-Google summary judgement opinion

While the case could continue to drag on in the appeals process, the summary judgment handed down in the Southern District of New York is a major victory for Google as well as for those who share content online and the technology sector at large.

Legal scholars predicted the outcome of this landmark suit would determine who profited the most from content: the people who pay for its creation, or the people who help disseminate it over the Web.

"What this court seems to be saying is that it is not a game of perfect. There is some burden on rights holders to do the policing [for copyright infringing works]. It can't all fall on the shoulders of third party host services."
--Denise Howell, Silicon Valley lawyer

Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google in March 2007 and accused the company of encouraging its users to commit copyright infringement. Before YouTube and Google implemented a filtering system and other content protections, YouTube users commonly uploaded unauthorized clips of TV shows and movies.

Google held that the DMCA's safe harbor provision protected it and other Internet service providers from being held responsible for copyright infringements committed by users. The judge agreed.

Viacom alleged that infringing materials were so plentiful, it was ludicrous to suggest that YouTube didn't know they existed on the site. Stanton noted that YouTube removed copyright-infringing clips once notified by an owner and that was all that was required to qualify for DMCA protection.

"If a service provider knows of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material," Stanton wrote. "If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is 'ubiquitous' does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements."

This seems to indicate that YouTube and Google may not be required to employ filtering technologies. But Denise Howell, a Silicon Valley-based attorney, said it's unlikely Google will remove those or that unauthorized clips will once again be plentiful on the site.

"What this court seems to be saying is that it is not a game of perfect," Howell said. "There is some burden on rights holders to do the policing [for copyright infringing works]. It can't all fall on the shoulders of third-party host services."

"[The court's decision] is wrong and will be overturned."
--Tom Sydnor, digital property expert

Tom Sydnor, a senior fellow who heads up studies digital property issues at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, said he expects Stanton's decision to be reversed. "It is wrong and will be overturned," said Sydnor, who compared Stanton's decision to those made by a district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the MGM v. Grokster case.

"Those decisions were unanimously reversed by the U.S Supreme Court," Stanton said. "The same results will follow here."

E-mail Greg Sandoval

If you have a question or comment for Greg Sandoval, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Submit your question or comment here: 0 of 1500 characters

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. Based in New York, Sandoval is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

Recent posts from Media Maverick
Pandora, a good service but poor investment
Report: Apple to pay music labels big advances
Apple signs Universal Music to iCloud
Is Eric Schmidt tech's most candid exec?
Apple still trying to land films, TV shows for iCloud
Apple's iCloud launch portends music
Report: Google bid $100M for cloud music rights
Was Napster or iTunes more influential?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (85 Comments)
by Thad Boyd (1371 comments ) June 23, 2010 1:57 PM PDT
"The intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions."

What the hell are they talking about? I can't recall any recent SCOTUS decisions on copyright.

Unless what they mean is that recent decisions show that the SCOTUS believes giant media conglomerates can do whatever the hell they want as long as there are no nipples or naughty words.
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by InkyRed (151 comments ) June 23, 2010 5:17 PM PDT
Lemme go upload something illegal.
2 people like this comment
by OniOokamiAlfador (2662 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:02 PM PDT
Good. It's about time. I'm sure this will drag on in appeals for a while but at least now we've got a starting point. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect a host to actively police and verify every piece of content before putting it up. It's even more ludicrous that Viacom is the one making this claim when they have acted disingenuously from the beginning. Viacom literally posted videos on youtube through its employees and then used them to threaten youtube/google.
Reply to this comment 14 people like this comment
by LKate (287 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:00 PM PDT
Indeed. Copyright law actually showing some rationality.
Hopefully this is a turning point.
8 people like this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 6:57 PM PDT
I disagree. The court basically said if my neighbor makes a bunch of home videos and he grants me the rights to post them online for a dollar, then I can post every movie ever made online and those rights holders can either pay me a dollar or get jack, because I'm a cooperative web site an those are my established fees.

I like getting 'free' as much as anyone else, but there are existing models (like Hulu and all the major networks) where content can be shown online with an occasional commercial, with royalties to the rights holder. And if a right sholder doesn't want their content shown, the sight can just go find other content.
by faceless128 (407 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:12 PM PDT
@mike_m_ekim

what? the judgement is pretty clear. it says follow the DMCA.

if you as a copyright holder see your copyrighted works being displayed illegally, file a DMCA Takedown complaint and Youtube will take it down.

it's ridiculous for it to be any other way as Youtube can't be sure about someone else's copyrighted works and if someone is authorized to upload something or not, plus it's not Youtube's job to be copyright cops, it's the job of the Copyright holder.
5 people like this comment
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:25 AM PDT
It's obvious that mike_m_ekim doesn't know the difference between YouTube and Hulu. I'll lend a hint: User Generated Content.
1 person likes this comment
by Renegade Knight (7723 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:18 AM PDT
@mike_m_ekim

The court said no such thing. They said Youtube (and other sites with user posted content) by themselves do not infringe. They went on to say that since Google follows the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and life is good.

Viacom and others do not get to dictate what business can and can't exist. They merley have the right to police their IP and work with websites to that effect.
1 person likes this comment
by Kimsh (310 comments ) June 24, 2010 10:20 AM PDT
However, by not policing copyright material on Youtube, and not being prepared to pay the copyright holder for the privilege Google is determining who can be in business. This is saying that Google has the right to make money off material that they do not have the rights to, and the rights holder can not expect a share.
Guess what happens, content either does not get created, or it just ends up being crap. Thanks Google for doing your part to to make lots of money and drive the quality of web content donw even further. Good news is they want to do the same to books. Yay Google.
by Endbringer42 (429 comments ) June 24, 2010 10:49 AM PDT
@Kimsh

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because Google is not scrutinizing every single video that is uploaded to see if it's copyrighted that content creators are going to quit making their work? Or are you saying that Google is now saying what movie studios and TV studios will stay in business? Either way, I don't think you understand what Youtube is and what it does. Nor do you understand the situation at all.
2 people like this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:23 PM PDT
@ mike_m_ekim
What are you talking about? That's not what the court is saying.
Why would those rights holders pay you a dollar or get jack?
Hulu is not user generated content.
The court ruled that for user generated content, it is the copyright holder's responsibility to locate what is copyrighted, since Youtube has no way of knowing this. Most of the content on Youtube is legitimate. If they had ruled the other way around, it would basically mean an end to user-generated video sites like Youtube.



@ Kimsh
Google does not have a right to make money from content they do not have a right to. The ruling simply asks the copyright holders to locate their own copyrighted content. Once located on Youtube, they can send a DMCA notice at which point Google must take down the content. Don't think you understand the situation.
by pradhanavs (450 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:04 PM PDT
So sad....the artists are always left out in every legal battle which has money associated....
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by Thranx (548 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:24 PM PDT
that's because the artists don't own the content.
8 people like this comment
by smith_jr (8 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:41 PM PDT
Yep. Mostly "left out" by corporations like Viacom.
2 people like this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 6:58 PM PDT
Agreed with thranx, the artists signed on the dotted line and got paid.

If a construction worked helps build a toll booth on a high way, that construction worker doesn't get a share of the tolls. The construction worker gets his paycheck.
1 person likes this comment
by phantom1076 (59 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:53 AM PDT
@mike

the fact is they don't get paid, like 7 cents on a dollar per record sold and only during the contract period? That analogy is ridiculous, the toll worker do not create anything original, he does not even come up with the idea of a toll booth while musicians (despite many lack necessary creativity) still creates something original that by and large were created solely by themselves.

Who cares about those labels anymore, they can all die and their distribution all get replaced by youtube and itunes for all i care (we have seen the beginning when many artists got famous just through youtube and make 60% of their record sold instead of 7% by uploading on itunes). The labels mostly put out craps anyways, they put out what are popular at the time, not what is genuinely good. If we rely solely on the label, we would never ever get those awesome music of the 60s, the 70s, and the 80s.
1 person likes this comment
by solitare_pax (5127 comments ) June 24, 2010 5:25 AM PDT
Agreed - while Youtube may host copyrighted content, ultimately they are providing free PR to the artist and labels involved - after all, if you see something good, enough, you will look for more and pay for it.

On the flip side, the labels need to play their part in the game, and ensure their content is available for purchase or rental all the time, lest it get posted simply because it is not available anywhere else.
2 people like this comment
by Endbringer42 (429 comments ) June 24, 2010 6:17 AM PDT
@phantom1076

So does the civil engineer that designed the road that the toll booth is on get a portion of the tolls? No. He/she signed a contract for the design of the road and was paid for it. End of story. It's the same with the music artists. They sign contracts of their own free will to have the music labels promote and sell their content. If they aren't getting paid more, then that is the artists own fault for signing on the dotted line.
2 people like this comment
by Stufiano (88 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:08 AM PDT
mike_m_ekim and Endbringer42 :
You guys SUCK at making analogies.
The toll booth doesn't logically relate. The construction worker only makes part of the whole. that's not the case in musicians, they make all of it [yes, the musicians are ones who are charged for mixing, not the record co]

A true analogy would be of the first toll booth being created and built by a person or company then another company purchases rights of use and sale of the toll booth and the idea behind it. For the loss of the rights the creator gets a certain percentage of each toll [sale] and may be an upfront payment if they were smart.
by Endbringer42 (429 comments ) June 24, 2010 10:55 AM PDT
@Stufiano

I was just responding to the other guy's analogy and I never used the worker in mine, so I'm not sure why you think my analogy doesn't work. I was using the content creator (the civil engineer) as the example.

And using your own logic about the artist being the "sole" creator doesn't change anything that I stated. The content creator or creators sign a contract to have their works promoted and spread throughout the world. They pay for that by signing on the dotted line. It doesn't matter if it's a single artist or a whole group of people and/or corporations.
1 person likes this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:28 PM PDT
@mike_m_ekim
His paycheck is his share of the tolls. Why should he get more?
Don't be a construction worker then.
by wahoospa (85 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:10 PM PDT
Viacom is starting to look more and more like SCO who fought a loosing case against Linux.
Reply to this comment 6 people like this comment
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:26 AM PDT
Don't you just hate having a loose case?
by Stufiano (88 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:10 AM PDT
It certainly isn't a water tight case, now is it?
by gerrrg (2465 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:15 PM PDT
Viacom lost a summary judgment...that's no small statement by the judge. I'd love to see the appeals court that would overturn this.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by OniOokamiAlfador (2662 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:19 PM PDT
Summary judgements get overturned often, generally under the argument that the case didn't receive due process. Of course that usually happens when the defendant is the one who gets nailed by it.
by Geeks-at-a-Gallop (47 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:32 PM PDT
Suck it, Viacom.
Reply to this comment 15 people like this comment
by t8 (3422 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:36 PM PDT
This is a win for the Web.
Reply to this comment 9 people like this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 6:59 PM PDT
This is a loss for people (like me) who appreciate good, quality content and are willing to watch a commercial in order to keep the studios churning out more good content.
by t8 (3422 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:13 PM PDT
I agree with you mike, but the outcome of this case could have ended with making user content such as what you see on Flickr and of course Youtube, an non-viable business model. Let's face it, you cannot have 100% success in weeding out copyrighted material upon upload. So working to take down copyrighted material seems like the only option besides closing shop.
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:27 AM PDT
to above: there is a difference between hulu and youtube. hint: user generated content.
2 people like this comment
by phantom1076 (59 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:58 AM PDT
@mike

Oh Please, youtube creates many original content that are far more entertaining and those artists made money by just being popular on youtube, I don't go on youtube to listen to Justin Bieber, maybe occasionally the Beatles if i don't have their songs on my ipod. The fact is the record sale of those labels are reduced because they can't create or willing to market good musicians, many people will not pay to buy some junks (if its free they'll listen to it, but not for $10 for a cd). Look @ Radiohead, they basically let people download their music for free on the web, and still got mad money from people because they get 100% of their money instead of get suckered for 7%.
4 people like this comment
by Renegade Knight (7723 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:25 AM PDT
@mike_m_ekim

It's a win for you in that you actually get to see funny dog video's on YouTube and everthing else that user generated content creates. Remember that the media companys can work with YouTube to post content and They can work with YouTube to remove alledgetly infringing content (via the process outlined in the DMCA).

I find that the media comapny sponsored videos (even on YouTube) are of a higher quality and worth the trouble. I also find that Hulu sucks because all the restrictions on what they can offer generally means that I can't find what I want to watch.
1 person likes this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:32 PM PDT
@mike_m_ekim
You don't like youtube?
There's only so much content on hulu, I find a lot of things on youtube that I otherwise wouldn't. Most of the content on Youtube is not copyright infringement. If the judge ruled the other way around it would mean the death of youtube. Then all those videos that are not copyrighted, wouldn't exist any longer. Because youtube would have no way to determine what's copyrighted and what's not, so the business model could no longer exist so they would not be able to post *any* videos at all.
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:34 PM PDT
@mike_m_ekim
Hulu only has so much stuff on it, actually it kinda sucks compared to what's on Youtube...
Most people prefer Youtube vs Hulu.
And youtube helps makes artists more popular. The infringements claimed by viacom, actually help to make some artists, titles, more famous.
by gumbiden (2 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:49 PM PDT
For any person out there who enjoys watching movies, you should care about this case!
The cost of movies will either go up, or fewer movies will be made because of losses. I personally
watch less T.V. and movies than the average American, but I know this case will effect my purse
negatively.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:01 PM PDT
Agreed.

People stopped making buggies soon after the car was invented. One day we may see Hollywood fade away as well.
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:31 AM PDT
So we should protect old technology, and prevent improving technology, just so people can still make money off it? Let's bring buggies back and put them on the roads and treat them the same as automobiles. We have to reduce speed limits now, however. What does a buggy top out at.. 15 maybe 20MPH?

Fewer movies won't be made. Go look at history. Also, youtube isn't for feature movies. It's for user generated content. You guys have some odd comments, or just don't understand what is going on.
2 people like this comment
by phantom1076 (59 comments ) June 24, 2010 5:02 AM PDT
You can't upload entire movies on Youtube, stop making stuffs up. Youtube is a digital distribution platform, Viacom and the likes hate it because now they are not in control of their revenue stream, it's not like youtube don't let them make money. If they can upload their entire good HD quality movies then they can put however amount of ads on that particular film (and google/youtube will pay them a lot of money through revenue sharing).
2 people like this comment
by Endbringer42 (429 comments ) June 24, 2010 6:22 AM PDT
You're right, I didn't go watch Avatar in 3D at the movie theater because there was a 30 second clip of it on Youtube that was 640x480 resolution on a computer monitor. I can't believe how Youtube is ruining the movie business!
5 people like this comment
by Renegade Knight (7723 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:32 AM PDT
It would help if you understant the this judgment does not authorize copyright infringment. That was, is, and remains illgal. What this does is say that if you follow the law, you are in good shape and greedy companies like Viacom who want to abuse the law won't in. IT's a good thing.

It also means that I can upload my own video to YouTube since YouTube is around and to be honest about the only place that will accapt my original work.
1 person likes this comment
by cryofpaine (201 comments ) June 30, 2010 2:00 PM PDT
Ridiculous.

First of all, YouTube is a tool, no different than a hammer. You can use a hammer to build a house, or use it to bash someone's skull in. The manufaturer of the hammer shouldn't go to jail for murder just because someone else used it in a way that it wasn't intended.

Second, they are being quite reasonable about this. There are filters in place, and all Viacom has to do is stop being a whiney baby about this and take responsibility for their share of the work. Google can't possibly be able to keep track of every copyright in existance, and then check the billions of videos on its site to see if any portion of any copyrighted work ever made exists on there. Just like the hammer manufacturer can't be expected to keep track of every person that ever bought a hammer, and everything they've ever done with the hammer. Now, if they were told that this particular hammer didn't have enough strength and was the wrong shape to hammer in a nail, but was strong enough and perfectly suited for hammering in a skull, then they would be responsible for issuing recalls, redesigning the hammer, etc.

Finally, they're not going to lose anything because of YouTube. That argument could be potentially true of file sharing sites and things like that, but YouTube's limitations and policies make it nearly impossible to post content that is worth replacing the theatre or tv for. The only exception could be in music, where a full song can be uploaded in high fidelity.

And even if the analogy of the buggy-car was applicable (which I seriously doubt), then what you find is that we adapt. Hollywood will find new business models, or it deserves to die and something else will take its place. I'd rather have my car than a horse and buggy.
1 person likes this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 22, 2010 9:12 AM PDT
@ mike_m_ekim
Do you not understand the situation?
Hollywood isn't going to fade away.
Less movies will not be made.
For movies, people will go to see it on the big screens.
You can't even post a full video on youtube and the screen is tiny and bad quality.
Right, allowing people to post clips is going to prevent movies from going to the movie theaters.
You're wrong about this.
Youtube *already* exists. People *already* post movie clips.
But do people still go to the movies? yes.
by gumbiden (2 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:50 PM PDT
For any person out there who enjoys watching movies, you should care about this case!
The cost of movies will either go up, or fewer movies will be made because of losses. I personally
watch less T.V. and movies than the average American, but I know this case will effect my purse
negatively.
Reply to this comment
by xuansu (43 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:57 PM PDT
The cost of movies would go up regardless of the outcome of this case. Had Viacom won, your cost would go up at a higher clip, that's the only difference.
14 people like this comment
by jtjt145 (246 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:56 PM PDT
Viacom ... another name to add to the sack baddies already containing:
MicroSoft, MIAA, RIAA, SCO ... and Joe Biden

Short description for them: slime bags
Reply to this comment 6 people like this comment
by madeinttown (61 comments ) June 24, 2010 6:09 AM PDT
Don't forget Apple!
3 people like this comment
by RoyalBlueBear (2 comments ) June 23, 2010 2:56 PM PDT
I think that Youtube/Google should take responsibility. Users do upload content that they do not legally have the rights to. Just because you recorded it off of tv or bought it on DVD or VHS does not mean you can upload it without permission. A slogan YouTube had suggested that you would upload your own videos such as home videos or ones you taken with your cam. It is nice to see something of the past but if any entertainment company wanted their tv shows, movies, etc. They would have done it on their own sites or created a YouTube channel. YouTube says that they are not responsible for what copyrighted material a user uploads, in my opinion, does not hold water. I upload videos but not of anything copyrighted except what is mine. YouTube and Google has to accept some responsibility. They should monitor every thing that gets uploaded if they want to avoid getting a lawsuit slapped in their faces.
Reply to this comment
by OniOokamiAlfador (2662 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:22 PM PDT
Not even close to a viable business model. Asking a company to police every single one of millions upon millions of uploads and verify each and every one for authenticity is beyond absurd. Youtube already removes every copyrighted video upon notification that it is in violation. That's plenty.
16 people like this comment
by redbullie (39 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:50 PM PDT
Another classic opinion piece from an internet justice...

I think that Youtube/Google should take responsibility.
-Youtube/Google DOES take responsibility, they remove unauthorized content once they are aware of it, that is the whole point of the safe harbor clause of the DCMA. Viacom was claiming that Youtube welcomed and encouraged the posting of unauthorized content to boost ad revenue, and they failed to prove their case. In fact (if you actually read the court judgment) you will see that at one point "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

Users do upload content that they do not legally have the rights to. Just because you recorded it off of tv or bought it on DVD or VHS does not mean you can upload it without permission.
-correct

A slogan YouTube had suggested that you would upload your own videos such as home videos or ones you taken with your cam. It is nice to see something of the past but if any entertainment company wanted their tv shows, movies, etc. They would have done it on their own sites or created a YouTube channel.
-Not sure how this is relevant, but sure.

YouTube says that they are not responsible for what copyrighted material a user uploads, in my opinion, does not hold water.
-No, the safe harbor clause of the DCMA says this and also, your legal opinion does not matter here.

I upload videos but not of anything copyrighted except what is mine.
Congratulations, would you like a cookie?

YouTube and Google has to accept some responsibility.
-See above

They should monitor every thing that gets uploaded if they want to avoid getting a lawsuit slapped in their faces.
-Per the DCMA, no they shouldn't: "if a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a "red flag") of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material.
If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is "ubiquitous" does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements."
9 people like this comment
by pmchefalo (133 comments ) June 23, 2010 5:21 PM PDT
Peabrain replies "Not even close to a viable business model. " Theft pretty much is Googles entire business model, but mostly through violations of privacy.
by bluemist9999 (998 comments ) June 23, 2010 6:47 PM PDT
That is an unreasonable expectation. It is like saying "If you run a hotel chain with millions of people going and leaving each day, you are responsible for how every occupant acts."

Certainly, in this instance, the hotel will respond promptly to complaints, but unless they hire tens of thousands of security guards, and have them prowling the hotel, poking into people's rooms, etc, they won't find every illegal act.

This is why the safe harbor exists. It says "If you take a reasonable effort to keep illegal content off, and honor all take down notices from copyright holders, that is all we expect." That is like having a competent staff that responds promptly to complaints and perhaps a few security guards to deal with issues as they come up.

That's totally different from, say, Limewire which explicitly facilitated searches for illegal material. That is like having a few, heavily bribed security guards (who ignore all wrong doing), and a staff that ignores complaints, along with a discreet map issued to each patron showing which rooms provide which illegal activity.
2 people like this comment
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:35 AM PDT
pmchefalo: theft??? someone call the police then. Stealing is a crime! Why didn't viacom call the police if google stole something????

Easy, it wasn't theft or stealing -- a criminal offense. Go Look up Copyright Infringement please. Thanks.

How do you tell if something is copyright? Can you just look at a random clip, picture, idea, and know automatically that it is covered by copyright? No. and Viacom couldn't either.
1 person likes this comment
by phantom1076 (59 comments ) June 24, 2010 5:08 AM PDT
Should every ISPs be sued since they also allowed people to download copyrighted contents? The fact is you can't scan every single videos, you can have a word filtering technology, but then people would just bypass that by making ridiculous title (like instead of The Dark Knight, it would just be Christian Bale in a suit movie). And when does it stop being copyrighted material? There has been many youtubers who just used a particular clip in a movie to make their own movie review on youtube, and it has been taken down by the like of Viacom. The fact is, all of these big corps just want to control the revenue generated on youtube, and google won't let them.
by Renegade Knight (7723 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:34 AM PDT
I think that people should take responsiblity for thier own actions. Viacom should take responsiblity for enforcing their own copyright. and Youttube shoudl take responslbity for following the law when they run their site.

Since that what this judge enforced, the world is good. They should specificly NOT montor everthing that gets uploaded. Viacom should not force anyone ELSE to enforce their own copyright, and users who post infrining matierals should not expet anyone but their own selves to take the blame for what they did.
1 person likes this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:45 PM PDT
@ RoyalBlueBear
24 hours worth of videos get uploaded per minute onto Youtube
How do you propose that Youtube monitor every single video and determine whether or not it's copyrighted? It has no way to tell a copyrighted video from a non copyrighted video.
It's an impossible task.

That's what the DMCA is for - for the copyright holder to notify the service provider of the illegal content and to have it removed. Yes it puts the burden on the copyright holder, but they are the only one who can identify the works. Part of creating original content, comes the cost with ensuring that the rights of your content are protected.
by grabacontroller (195 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:20 PM PDT
If people buy, the higher it goes up. If people don't, the cheaper it goes so they can get rid of the item.
Reply to this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:02 PM PDT
True, the price goes down and they stop making more.
by Jasper1675 (17 comments ) June 23, 2010 3:22 PM PDT
glad to see google won this case, if they had lost there wouldnt be a free place to download music.
Actually that is sarcasim, google should of had to pay in this case, they really do profit from viacoms stuff. google should be responsible to police you tube.

the only real difference between limewire and youtube is google has better lawyers. Limewire actually has a viable product to let people share files something that is important on the net, youtube also has a viable product that allows people to post videos for free. But lets be honest both make their money and get a majority of their traffic from stolen content. trying to think of the last time i went to youtube and wasn't watching copyrighted content. Just went to youtube.com atleast 4 of the featured videos on the homepage are copyrighted content but atleast they are trying yeah right.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by EducatedPanther (84 comments ) June 23, 2010 5:42 PM PDT
Limewire was explicitly programmed to allow the illegal sharing of copyright content. Google has actually employed filters and moderators to respond to complains from content owners. That, my friend, gives them protection under DMCA, for making a reasonable attempt to keep copyrighted content off their service.

It is up to the content owners to request removal. YOU try to start a service that monitors MILLIONS of videos! Hah! You will not survive.
3 people like this comment
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:38 AM PDT
right, even the judge said that this case does not compare to the other P2P cases like Grokster, Limewire, etc.
3 people like this comment
by madeinttown (61 comments ) June 24, 2010 6:14 AM PDT
Google DOES police youtube. The judge's summary clearly says that since Google has been assisting copyright holders in the removal of their work, Google is not responsible for one that slipped through.
3 people like this comment
by badasscat (358 comments ) June 24, 2010 7:08 AM PDT
Google does exactly what they are required to do under the DMCA. Viacom sued anyway, and the judge agreed with Google. End of story.

Those who are saying Google "should" do this or that are missing the point. The law is what it is.
1 person likes this comment
by jcarrfan (7 comments ) July 19, 2010 9:56 PM PDT
@Jasper1675
It's impossible to police millions of videos, they have no way to know what's copyrighted and what's not.
Wrong, most videos on youtube are not copyrighted. People upload personal, home videos all the time. Limewire has more illegal content.
by albertsoler (349 comments ) June 23, 2010 4:20 PM PDT
We're ten years into a new millennium. Times are no longer just changing -- they've changed. Business models must and will evolve. The best new ideas will survive and thrive. The old school will perish and wither away.

The last gasps of a dying beast before sinking into the tar pit formed by the decaying remnants of old school business models, is always that desperate grasp at the tree branch of litigation. But, as we saw with SCO, it is futile. For the tree branch of litigation is attached to a dead stump -- A once mighty tree that died when that very same tar pit smothered its roots. The beast may be able to hang on for a short while, but the branch will eventually snap, or just crumble away.

Pity the beast. For it was once mighty and ruled the world. But, like all things, they too will pass. Somewhere, tiny creatures, who just a very few years ago, were easily stepped over or trampled on by the old, mighty beast -- they are evolving. First by filling in small niches where the beast was just too big to hunt. Then, taking over the vast hunting grounds left behind by the extinct beast where they will thrive and grow.

Look to these small creatures. They are the survivors. They are the future. You know who they are. They are the "Pandoras", the "Ronald Jenkees", the "lonelygirl15s", the "David MeShows", the "Loreena McKennitts", and thousands, if not millions of others.

They are the future.
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by mike_m_ekim (1017 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:08 PM PDT
I saw lonelygirl15 and quite frankly the production sucked.

If I had to choose between Spiderman/Star Trek/Day and Knight or Pandora/David MeShows/Millions of other trash, I'd rather have the quality stuff with a commercial, than the commercial-free trash.

Oh, and FYI, you're paying as much for broadband as people used to pay for cable, so you haven't saved a dime. You're just getting worse programming. "200 channels and nothing's on" has become "1,000,000 youtube videos and they all suck".
by Sausagebiscuit (651 comments ) June 24, 2010 4:41 AM PDT
troll_m_ekim: good thing you didn't have to pay first to see lonelygirl15 and not be able to get your money back. You really are short sighted if you think because something has a commercial it is somehow better than something without.

Do you work for Viacom? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder with all these posts you've made that are easily debunked.
3 people like this comment
by phantom1076 (59 comments ) June 24, 2010 5:18 AM PDT
@mike

there is no free movies on youtube, people like you are just shills for the industry. And youtube do have commericals to cover their revenue sharing mechanism. You saw lonelygirl? Boy, how long ago is that? It's before Google bought Youtube, it's before Youtube became a sensation, that's how long ago it is. Those million of other trash that you talk about are not copyrighted so if you don't want to watch it, nobody is hurt. But there are so many of original user generated content (the Go Go guys being one) that are better than some industry generated craps. The technology to produce music or movies are so widely available now that its ridiculous to say those that are produced by corps are definitely better. And please don't give examples like Dark Knight, Star Trek, or spiderman, those are already covered and paid for by people going to the theaters, buying dvds, buying merchandise. How about the craps like Justin Bieber, the killers, and so many other stupid movies they make every single year?

On youtube, mostly music video are being the contentious issue, no one has uploaded the entire Dark Knight or Spiderman on Youtube, stop fear mongering that those movies would never be produced if Google gets their way. It's crap.
3 people like this comment
by Renegade Knight (7723 comments ) June 24, 2010 9:36 AM PDT
@ mike_m_ekim

I didn't see lonlygirl15. Instead I rented a DVD from netflix. No commercials and the quaity was better. What was your point?
by beowulf74 (238 comments ) June 23, 2010 4:48 PM PDT
Wow, so common sense actually prevailed in court? Shocker!

Viacom sux and they got OWNED! Let them waste more $ in appeals.
Reply to this comment 4 people like this comment
by AndroidFTW (4057 comments ) June 23, 2010 5:01 PM PDT
YES !!!
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by Seaspray0 (7079 comments ) June 24, 2010 12:31 PM PDT
Me thinks copywrite got beaten by copyleft.
1 person likes this comment
by MSSlayer (1099 comments ) June 23, 2010 5:31 PM PDT
Good!

Now Google is only 99.9% evil.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by unknown unknown (1684 comments ) June 23, 2010 6:31 PM PDT
Another sample of the twisted logic from Tom Sydnor, and calling him an expert well just makes gag.


""It is wrong and will be overturned," said Sydnor, who compared Stanton's decision to those made by a district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the MGM v. Grokster case"

Never mind the radical difference between Grokster and YouTube. Grokster actively encouraged infringing content (one of the key points of that trial; often over looked by copyright maximalists), Google on the other hand has gone above and beyond what is required by the DMCA. Though Viacom did try to make it look like Google was doing the same thing with carefully chosen excepts from emails obtained during discovery.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by krosafcheg (643 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:04 PM PDT
So now you use this for gnutella, limewire, etc etc
Reply to this comment
by ReggieREAL (14 comments ) June 23, 2010 7:31 PM PDT
Every since the RIAA went on the war path; everyone and their mother are crying "COPYRIGHT!!" I wish all of these crybabies just stop the boo-hooing.....MAN ENOUGH ALREADY!
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (85 Comments)
advertisement
Latest News

Facebook going Spartan to take on Apple?

Social network could soon unveil an HTML5-based, Safari-centric platform in an attempt to create a major challenge to Apple's App Store, according to a report.

Bounty set for negating Lodsys patents

scoop The group that's gone after a number of mobile app developers and big companies alike is now having its four patents targeted for invalidation by a crowdsourced research group.

About Media Maverick

In covering digital media for CNET News, Greg Sandoval has broken stories on Apple, Microsoft, YouTube, The Pirate Bay, and the digital efforts of the major music labels and Hollywood studios. Before that, in his first tour with CNET News, he covered e-commerce during the dot-com boom and bust. A dogged investigative reporter, he began his journalism career at the Los Angeles Times and followed that with a short TV stint at The E! True Hollywood Story. Later, he spent three years as a staff writer for The Washington Post. Greg is an alumnus of USC and was raised in Chatsworth, California, which is distinguishable only for being the porn capital of the world.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Media Maverick topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right