Viacom suit is Net killer, Google claims

Hey guys, this is what DMCA was made for


Viacom's copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube threatens the way that hundreds of millions of people use the internet, YouTube owner Google has said in its court defence.

YouTube is accused by media conglomerate Viacom of copyright infringement in a $1bn court case that could prove a vital testing ground for the legal basis of businesses grounded in user-submitted content.

Google said that it not only complies with US copyright law, but that it goes "far beyond" its legal obligations in the way that it protects content producers and owners.

Viacom is suing YouTube in a New York court for copyright infringement, alleging that YouTube profits from the videos it hosts that infringe its copyright.

Viacom owns television stations such as Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon, and says that YouTube is liable for copyright infringement even when it is users who publish clips from its shows via the site.

Google says that YouTube is protected by US Copyright law which shields it from liability if it did not publish the material and if it acts swiftly to take it down once informed of its existence.

Viacom sought more than $1bn in punitive damages, despite the copyright legislation only allowing actual or statutory damages. The court ruled in March that it could not seek punitive damages.

Its suit claims that Viacom-owned videos have been viewed more than 1.5 billion times, breaching the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Google denies that it has broken that law. In fact it claims that the law was written with services such as YouTube in mind.

"Viacom’s lawsuit challenges the protections of the DMCA that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube," said Google in its defence, lodged with the court. "Congress recognized that such services could not and would not exist if they faced liability for copyright infringement based on materials users uploaded to their services. It chose to immunize these services from copyright liability provided they are properly responsive to notices of alleged infringement from content owners."

"YouTube fulfills Congress’s vision for the DMCA. YouTube also fulfills its end of the DMCA bargain, and indeed goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works," said the court document.

The DMCA contains what is called a safe harbor provision, which is what protects companies from liability for material uploaded by third parties. It is this which Google believes will protect it.

Viacom, though, claims that Google deliberately ignores its obligations in order to turn a profit on advertising on pages.

"YouTube strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube on to the victims of its infringement," said Viacom in its original claim.

"YouTube is a significant for-profit organisation that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent, Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal," it said.

YouTube warns users as they upload material that they must have permission to do so, something which could help it defend itself in court. Both sides in the dispute have asked for a jury trial.

Google said in its court submission that the case could alter the very nature of the internet if it goes Viacom's way.

"By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression," it said.

Copyright © 2008, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022