ViaCom Finds Smoking YouTube Gun

[Brett_Tabke]

Arstechnica has a fascinating analysis of court documents released yesterday in the Viacom vs Youtube lawsuit:
[arstechnica.com...]

YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site. "Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point. In an e-mail, Chen talked about “concentrat[ing] all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.”

"In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s August 9, 2005 e-mail, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: 'but we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don’t see what will happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down right away. he get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down.'"

"A month later, [YouTube manager Maryrose] Dunton told another senior YouTube employee in an instant message that 'the truth of the matter is probably 75-80 percent of our views come from copyrighted material.' She agreed with the other employee that YouTube has some 'good original content' but 'it’s just such a small percentage.'"

There is so much here to digest. For the first time, it sounds to me like Viacom has a serious chance of winning this suit.

Viacom argues that the startup's strategy was, at its core, a decision to profit from copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether YouTube showed ads on its video pages or not (for years, it did not, apparently concerned about just this issue); to Viacom, the entire business strategy was a way of profiting from infringement.

Which given the emails released, that sounds true. Knowingly profiting from copyrighted materials invalidates the DMCA safe harbor provision. It sounds like they have YouTube cold. Game over.

[StoutFiles]

If Viacom loses a couple percentage points off their total profits so that a women in Iran has a place she can show social injustices for the world to see uncensored minutes after it happening, then that is worth it to me for a site like YT to exist.

This isn't about Viacom. It's about anyone who creates content and having it stolen by everyone who can get their grubby hands on it.

If Google wins this case, it's basically telling every site that they can steal any material they want as long as it's "user submitted".

I hate that people are taking their opinions of Google into this dicussion, for or against. I love YouTube. Everyday at work since YouTube is blocked, I pull out my iPhone, plug in my headphones, and type in "song_name_here lyrics" and boom, I get the song. YouTube is the greatest, easiest to use free mobile music player. I'd be very sad if it went away like Seeqpod.

However, I'm taking a very neutral stance on this and it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that YouTube has boatloads of copyrighted material on it. With its current buisness model it will only increase and if it was my material being stolen, I'd be PISSED. If YouTube doesn't lose this case there will be a theft free-for-all on the web.

"THEY CAME FIRST for Viacom,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Viacom.

THEN THEY CAME for all media,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't make media.

THEN THEY CAME for the books,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't write books.

THEN THEY CAME for written content,
and I didn’t speak up because it wasn't my content.

THEN THEY CAME for my content
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[tangor]

YouTube is the greatest, easiest to use free mobile music player.

And that is the exact reason why YouTube is in trouble. And why (after Viacom) expect the music media to all over Google... they've been trying that, but have been put off so far.

[graeme_p]

Nope. If there is no written license then there is no license regardless of how it got there. The copyright statutes are pretty clear on this.

In that case Webmaster World is violating my copyright on all the comments I have made on the site. It also implies I could copy stuff from my site to Wikipedia (other people have done it) and them sue them. I think not.

They knew it was there. They profited from it.

They took down the specific material they knew about. Does the law say they needed to know in general or in particular?

How did they profit from it? I thought they did not put ads on all pages, only stuff they have licensed?

So you don't believe the founders of knew about infringement and allowed it, and even participated in it?

Did Google continue to participate in infringements? How many of the huge number of videos Viacom are suing over were posted by, or with the knowledge of, the founders? Very few

To bottom line it how much is Google going to milk the Adwords advertisers for and deny the Adsense publishers to keep profits up. It’s probably been in the works for a while and could get worse to keep that bloated stock price up.

If you think Adwords is to expensive, advertise elsewhere. If you think Adsense does not pay enough use another ad network or sell ads directly.

[TheMadScientist]

In that case Webmaster World is violating my copyright on all the comments I have made on the site.

LMAO, that's funny.

WebmasterWorld TOS [webmasterworld.com]
29. When a message is placed in any forum system, you are granting a soft license to the site to use it.

You can actually try to sue for anything...
Can you get your case heard without getting laughed at, let alone have a chance of winning is a completely different question. If it weren't for those pesky e-mails to shed a whole bunch of light on the situation we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's too bad it's Viacom suing and not some company with slightly 'cleaner' hands, but after reading the e-mails IMO there's a big difference between 'yeah, there's enough videos to probably be some infringement somewhere' and 'the site's traffic is almost built entirely on obviously infringing content' (Just to reiterate: I got the 'obviously infringing' and 'traffic almost entirely built on summary' from the article referencing the court docs.)

Seriously, don't people think there's a big difference in truly having a video site that's so big there's probably some infringing content, but you really don't know and don't know where and a site where they basically say, 'Yeah, we know it's there, we put some of it there, we're going to leave it there until someone tells us to take it down.'? I certainly do.

How many of the huge number of videos Viacom are suing over were posted by, or with the knowledge of, the founders? Very few

How much of the traffic came from the viewing of the infringing material the founders knew about and their price tag was based on? Very much. According to them, 80% or so.

If you think Adwords is to expensive, advertise elsewhere. If you think Adsense does not pay enough use another ad network or sell ads directly.

Agreed!

Did Google continue to participate in infringements?

That's actually a very good question, and IMO it might be since they show ads and the traffic is generated mostly by infringing content it could be determined, yes, they did, because they drew 80% of their traffic in by using infringing material, and although they have license to show some specific clips they knowingly generated revenue from the infringing content traffic by placing the ads on 'clean' pages...

I think if their traffic was 80% 'clean' and they only showed ads on pages they had explicit license to it would be a really tough argument to say they 'knowingly profited from the infringement', but when 80% of the site's traffic (according to the source) is based on infringing content then IMO it could be fairly reasonably concluded they profited from the infringing content by only running ads on other pages on the site, because almost the entire traffic base is from infringement.

It would probably be fairly easy to determine with a user click-path... If 80% or even a 'high' percentage of the ad clicks were drawn to infringing content (entered via, viewed first) and secondarily viewed a 'clean page' and clicked an advertisement, which content actually generated the revenue? It seems fairly reasonable to me the revenue was generated from the visitor being able to view infringing content, even though the advertisement was not placed directly on the same page.

Think about this for a minute:
80% of the the visits are for infringing content...
Visitor comes to view infringing content.
Visitor clicks on related videos.
Visitor clicks on an advertisement.

80% of the the visits are for infringing content...
Visitor comes and searches for infringing content.
Other content shows in the results when they search.
Visitor clicks on other content and then an ad.

In either case the visitor would not be there to click the advertisement if the infringing content was not present... The infringing content IMO generated the visit and therefore the revenue, because without the ability to watch the infringing content the visitor would not be there to search for or view anything and would not generate any revenue... I think they're in the wrong on this one.

Also, if advertising with banners or other cost mechanisms besides clicks is present and pricing is based on overall site traffic, then the infringing content contributed to the revenue generated by the advertisement regardless of where it was placed for visitors to view.

Like I said previously, if less of the traffic was generated by infringing content, then IMO it would be different, but when 80% of the traffic is driven to the site by infringing content, you IMO can reasonably conclude the infringing content actually generated most of the revenue regardless of the page the advertisements are placed on.

If there is infringing content on the home page and one visitor views it or comes to view it, and that home page advertisement generates any revenue from the visit either by click, the display, or the overall visit count then they profited from the infringing content, didn't they?

Edited: Corrected an obvious mis-statement to say what I really meant.

[zett]

Also, let's not forget that there is still another case to be ruled upon:

The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al [docs.justia.com]

Again, recommended reading for anyone remotely interested in copyright.

What's interesting is that this case (unlike the Viacom case) does not limit the motion to a period ending May 2008.

Also, for this case the plaintiffs dug up new facts that put the defendants into a very bad light (e.g. page 9, on how the director of video partnerships at Google requested removal of Premier League clips in preparation for a meeting where League officials would be present).

Plaintiffs also address the wide area of music (page 10) which gets little coverage in the Viacom case. (Funny also, that Youtube's legal counsel had been working for an Internet music service before. So he was "intimately familiar with the need to secure licences" for music content.)

Ah, 2010 is a good year for content producers.

[TheMadScientist]

Did Google continue to participate in infringements?

Uh, yeah, they still are according to the following...

Read the document in the link provided by Zett to find this quote:
I'm on page 17 of 41 (Page 13 of the doc body) and mind blown by what I'm reading... They absolutely knew and know if this is at all true.

Google agreed to provide SESAC (one of the music performance rights organizations) with quarterly reports of videos on YouTube that SESAC was authorized to license.

...

Thus, the Defendants' [Google's] content identification system gave it specific knowledge of specific songs being exploited on the site that it knew it had not yet licensed, yet, rather than removing the content through it's readily available "blocking" technology, YouTube knowingly permitted it to remain on the site.

...

Defendants' systems identify music content on a song by song basis, and are sufficient to determine not only that the song is infringing, but which rights holders owned or controlled the relevant rights to it.

Read the document linked before you say anything else about them not knowing or how could they know or anything else to that effect, please... It's a very poor argument to say they have no idea about what is or is not infringing content if this complaint isn't some made up joke.

From page 19 (Page 15 of the doc body)

In September 2005, YouTube decided to allow users to flag videos as potentially copyright infringing using the community flagging feature; however it soon reversed this decision, precisely because it realized the feature created a documentary trail establishing YouTube's actual knowledge of specific videos and would force YouTube to remove, rather than continue to benefit from, the presence of this content on the site. ("it's actually better if we don't have the link [to the copyright flag]")

Again, please read this entire complaint if you think they didn't know or couldn't do anything or aren't still doing it, because if it's at all accurate IMO they're hosed. The quotes I have here aren't even close to encapsulating paragraph after paragraph of the complaint...

Paraphrased from the doc; leads in to the following quote: YouTube considered implementing an automated keyword system to identify uploads that might be infringing prior to making the video viewable, which was to be based on the meta data added by the user at the time of upload...

From page 20 (Page 16 of the doc body)

In an instant message between YouTube engineer Matt Rizzo and YouTube executive Maryrose Dunton, Rizzo explained that setting up that tool "isn't hard" and would only "take another day or w/e [weekend]," but Dunton responded "[ I ] hate this feature. I hate making it easier for these ass holes" --referring to copyright owners-- and directed the engineer to "forget about this." She explained, "we're just trying to cover our asses so we don't get sued."

I'm really blown away by what I'm reading honestly...

[TheMadScientist]

I disagree it is up to Youtube to stop it. It isn't.

So wrong...
(From the same document I kept reading and referencing in my previous post)

...

Where defendants took active steps, including both automated filtering and human review, to remove access to certain categories of content, and to block certain users" defendants were transformed "from passive providers of a space in which infringing activities happened to occur to active participants in the process of copyright infringement.

...

A service provider wishing to benefit from the limitation on liability on the new subsection (c) must 'take down' or disable access to infringing material [...] where it has actual knowledge or the criteria for a 'red flag' test have been met- even if the copyright owner or its agent does not notify it of a claimed infringement.

...

The DMCA protection of an innocent service provider disappears the moment they lose innocence.

I'll let you all read the rest for yourselves, but to me it looks like they're in a bad way on this one.

[potentialgeek]

First there was Napster and then there was YouTube...

YouTube can avoid 'Napster's fate' (2006)
[news.bbc.co.uk...]

Not so sure.

Props to Steve Jobs for a very successful clean business at iTunes.

YT has always seemed dodgy and a legal accident waiting to happen.

The mistake was made at the top where the leaders didn't just say no. The question about it being evil was the correct question. The problem was they had no force in their answer.

Smart people sometimes need to make quick decisions. The more you think about ethical issues, the more time you have to rationalize anything.

[driller41]

It shows that having expensive lawyers can help when you are guilty.

Anyway, that is not my point, I am thinking - how would this affect webmasters who are embedding Youtube videos on their own sites - we do not have expensive lawyers of course.

I am thinking if Google loses this case, perhaps in the near future.

[StoutFiles]

Anyway, that is not my point, I am thinking - how would this affect webmasters who are embedding Youtube videos on their own sites - we do not have expensive lawyers of course.

The videos would likely disappear from your site. You would be forced to host your own videos, unless there are other alternative sites willing to do this.

[zett]

how would this affect webmasters who are embedding Youtube videos on their own sites - we do not have expensive lawyers of course.

Very good question.

Surely enough, when Youtube disappears, then you have to host the videos elsewhere. But I doubt that Youtube will entirely disappear. I think it will probably be reduced to just another video site that uses pre-screening and other processes to ensure that they are in line with the copyright laws. They will lose most of their traffic to "premium" (yet unlicenced) content.

But from another angle, the question gets really interesting: Can you be held responsible for embedding clips that have been not properly licenced and hosted on Youtube?

Consider this - you are running a blog with "funny videos" embedded to your blog. Next to the videos you ran Adsense ads, served also by Google. Should the court rule that Youtube can be held responsible for hosting the videos, would that mean that YOU could also be held responsible for showing the same video, directly profiting from the infringing activity?

I imagine that if Youtube/Google lose this case, a witchhunt also for the small guys might begin. Youtube/Google would have to hand over even more information about who, what, when.

[driller41]

Can you be held responsible for embedding clips that have been not properly licenced and hosted on Youtube?

That is my point, we do not generally have expensive lawyers to get us off the hook.

It is really easy to toss up a site, automatically pulling Youtube content and throw in somw adsense adds.

So if google loses this, what is the ongoing liability.

The videos would likely disappear from your site. You would be forced to host your own videos, unless there are other alternative sites willing to do this.

The point is the webmaster displayed the videos in the first place and they may then come after the webmaster with the legal threats. - I am thinking about the Getty and Corbis image licensing cases.

[Don_Hoagie]

The people who make decisions at Google are among the most intelligent and most forward-thinking people in the world. It's tempting to think they slipped up and let their greed get the best of them... but I'd be very suspicious of that notion, romantic as it may seem to the little guy.

I am quite certain that from the moment Google considered acquiring YouTube up to today, someone at Google has been updating an extremely complex version of the following balance sheet:


YT Revenue (anything and everything)
- YT Expenses (anything and everything - including lawsuits and their projected repercussions)
----------------------------
= Google's Financial Benefit

Google's Financial Benefit
+ YT search and behavior data
+ Competitive benefit
+ Other benefits only Google understands
----------------------------
= Google's Net Benefit


...and I imagine that balance sheet looks almost as good to Google today as it did before they acquired YouTube. I think they knew what they were doing, and they still know what they're doing.

[Demaestro]

How else is Youtube to tell which videos were allowed and which 60,000 weren't?

Asked and answered previously in this thread.

Yes but as I pointed out there are already extremely easy circumvention methods, so the "solutions" presented in this thread aren't really solution as much as they are bandaids.

I agree that Youtube has a requirement to make attempts to curb copyright infringement, but to ask that they stop it or shut their site down is going to far in my opinion.

Punishing the offenders is the way to go, not punishing the owners of the place the offenders did their deed.... in my opinion, and currently in the law as well.

I still think they are right to wait for takedown notices before taking down content.

There is abuse on both sides, you have the other side of this problem where the DMCA take down system is abused. You have people filing DMCA notices on videos simply because they don't like the content of those videos.

Videos critical of Islam are taken down by DMCA notices all the time. The warning of a penalty under law for false filings isn't stopping anyone from abusing the system. Sometimes people file false DMCA's because they are ridiculed or feel threatened... neither are issues of copyright, yet they use the copyright take down system to get videos they don't agree with removed.... it is being used as a censorship tool.

Many Youtube users put in 100s of hours working up a large subscription base only to have it yanked from them when a video they created is the victim of a false DMCA. Then they have to work even harder to prove to Youtube that their video is ok, which isn't easy if you are a little guy in their eyes.

It is a complicated problem, and a complicated system. If there were an easy fix-all solution then it would have been implemented.

It is hard work to protect your copyright and just because sites like Youtube, Ustream, LiveStream, Yamour, and a milliion other sites make it harder doesn't mean they are bad sites or even doing anything wrong, it is their users that are doing things wrong, not them.

[StoutFiles]

I agree that Youtube has a requirement to make attempts to curb copyright infringement, but to ask that they stop it or shut their site down is going to far in my opinion.

You agree that YouTube has a requirement to curb copyright infringement, but asking them to stop it is going too far in your opinion? What is an appropriate level? 50% curbed? 5% curbed?

It is hard work to protect your copyright and just because sites like Youtube, Ustream, LiveStream, Yamour, and a milliion other sites make it harder doesn't mean they are bad sites or even doing anything wrong, it is their users that are doing things wrong, not them.

You're absolutely right...the users who upload the content should be punished. How do you suggest we punish them? You might be able to solve YouTube's problem. What about the money made off the video they were never given permission to show? Should YouTube get to keep that money or should they give back the money they earned off that video?

[Demaestro]

Sorry I misspoke there.... requiring that Youtube be the solution provider for this problem or else shut the doors is going to far and saying to shut the door if it can't be stopped is going to far..... obviously they need to work with content providers to administer the solution but currently there is no solution.

How to punish offenders is up to law enforcement. Last I checked Youtube was not a law enforcement agency. Why is it up to Youtube to find and punish these criminals?

Has Youtube refused to give IP addresses of accounts that have been served DMCA notices? Has Viacom asked a prosecutor to subpoena Youtube for this info? Why isn't Viacom going after the criminals instead of Youtube?

This is why I continue to repeat that the onus is on Viacom to protect their property. If Youtube was blocking investigations into it's users' activities then I would rail them for that, but I haven't heard of them doing so.

Why is it that the RIAA can find people downloading torrents and successfully sue them in court using ISP documentation to prove they were guilty but Viacom can't? I haven't even heard of Viacom trying to go after the actual offenders or subpoenaing any user data from Youtube.... why is that? Are they interested in seeing the criminals prosecuted or are they just looking to sue with no real interest in holding the actual offenders liable?

Viacom seems content to assign the task of internet cop to Youtube.

[TheMadScientist]

Punishing the offenders is the way to go, not punishing the owners of the place the offenders did their deed.... in my opinion, and currently in the law as well.

You are so wrong about what the law seems to say and obviously you have not read the document I suggested reading and cited numerous times earlier in this thread before posting what seems to be an inaccurate view of the law and situation...

When they begin managing, manipulating, organizing, profiting from the content they move from 'harmless, unknowing host' to 'willing participant'.

I'll cite again, since people refuse to look for themselves to know a bit more about what they're actually talking about:
(From the source linked in Zett's POST)

First as a threshold requirement, the safe harbors in []512 (c) only protect a service provider against liability "by reason of the storage at the discretion of the user of [the infringing] material...". 17 U.S.C []512 (c)(1). If the service provider engages in acts with respect to the infringing content that go beyond "storage at the direction of the user," it cannot qualify for any protection under this section.

...

In fact unlike websites that merely store content for users to access later YouTube edits, selects, promotes, sorts, categorizes, and distributes infringing content, and does so across multiple platforms, including mobile phones and television.

Also, if you read the document you would know turning a blind eye is considered 'knowing', which removes them from the protection of the DMCA and it can be very reasonably determined from the fact the founders knew 80% of their traffic was based on pirated content, the Google execs were made aware of the fact there was highly sought after pirated content on the site and IMO they 'turned a blind eye' by adding and subsequently removing the ability for users to report possible copyright violations via the flagging system.

PLEASE even if you like YouTube be big enough to know what the complaint is about and a bit about what the law actually says and what a company has to do / cannot do to qualify for DMCA Protection before you say they are in the right on this or the law is on their side, regardless of your view of YouTube or Google or Viacom or any other entity involved in the situation.

Viacom seems content to assign the task of internet cop to Youtube.

SO DOES COPYRIGHT LAW!

YouTube turned a blind eye, which is legally equated to knowledge.
YouTube manipulates the information rather than simply storing it in the location the user dictated.
YouTube IMO will not have one shred of DMCA protection and doesn't deserve any.

Google video was run right. They did it the way they did for a reason. Then they bought YouTube and jumped to the other side. The allegations in the linked complaint aren't vague and to have DMCA protection ALL the requirements of the DMCA must be satisfied, including not profiting from the infringing content. Removing the content even if there is no reported infringement, but the content raises a 'red-flag', not having any knowledge of infringement which is made evident by them 'turning a blind eye'.

Read the flipping complaint with the law citations and explanations, please.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 6:52 pm (utc) on Mar 23, 2010]

[Demaestro]

I read it, I just disagree with the interpretation that Youtube has become a "willing participant". Youtube removes any video that is made known to them through the process that was set up to do so... by the copyright holder filing a DMCA.

As soon as they receive notice they take it down. You want them to become more then the host, you want them to become the claimant for other peoples copyrights. Only Viacom can be the claimant on a video that Viacom holds a copyright for and you want Youtube to be the claimant for videos that Viacom holds a copyright on.

If they do it for Viacom then they have to do it for everyone else on the planet who has a copyright on a video that gets uploaded to Youtube. That isn't possible and that isn't how the system that was set up to protect copyrighted material on the Internet.

[TheMadScientist]

They also have to remove any content that raises a 'red-flag' which they did not and do not do.

If they do it for Viacom then they have to do it for everyone else on the planet who has a copyright on a video that gets uploaded to Youtube.

If the content meets the criteria for raising a red flag, THEY DO!

Again, according to the law, the owner does not need to file an infringement claim for YouTube to have the right and the responsibility to remove the information if the content meets the criteria for raising a red flag. Failure to do so disqualifies them from DMCA protection.

You can choose to not accept the reality if you want, but the DMCA was instituted to protect those who truly do not know, do not profit directly from, do not turn a blind eye to not those who choose to look the other way and manage, sort, organize, make more easily available, and profit from.

[outland88]

If you think Adwords is to expensive, advertise elsewhere. If you think Adsense does not pay enough use another ad network or sell ads directly.

Gimme a break. Some of the people in these threads are so married to MFA domains, upload sites, and copyright infringement they absolutely don’t want any laws enforced. They stick out like sore thumbs because they want the thievery to continue. Their favorite outcry is the above and go elsewhere when there’s talk of enforcing any laws. Then comes the freedom of speech issue they want to hide behind while they steal. Talk about the flat obvious.

[mack]

All Youtube would need to do is have a look through their search logs to see what sort of content users are looking for. I am pretty sure a company under the control of Google do a lot of research using search related data. How many users find what they are looking for?

I don't see how people can possibly see Youtube as an innocent party in all of this. If you own a website would you not feel responsible for the content on it, regardless of how it got there?
They have already fallen victim to the Italian courts on this count and where found to be liable for content on the site.

The Youtube model was flawed from the start and Google have done very little to actually change things. Yes they do have a DMCA procedure but is it effective?

Youtube should take more responsibility for content that is shown on THEIR site. Screen everything manually, compare it against a fingerprint system and only if it passes should it be listed and even then add to the fingerprint system.

Even the manual review would catch most offenders. Is it a TV show, an advert or a scene from a movie, does it contain copyright music if any are true delete the content.

As the fingerprint system gets better it could be the first line of defense. Simply prevent the publishing of an upload if it fails the fingerprint test. Only content that passes would them be subject to manual review.

Many people see the scale of Youtube as being an excuse, sorry I don't buy that for a second. If there had been a strong prevention process in place from the start the site would have never gotten to the size it is now simply because the pirate material wouldn't be there.

Mack.

[outland88]

I read it, I just disagree with the interpretation that Youtube has become a "willing participant".

How can you make such an interpretation:

The owners of You Tube were admitting in e-mails (material evidence) they were willing participants in the scheme. As the promise of greater money evolved they seemingly became even more willing. Google e-mails seemingly present all these illegalities were presented to upper management and the ownership at Google. If anybody was an unwilling they could have stepped back and said this is wrong and illegal. Show me the unwillingness or the activity (hard evidence) that you feel made them unwilling. A legal contract is made between willing parties.

[Demaestro]

They didn't admit to being willing participants, they admitted knowing infringing content was on their site and that that waiting for a DMCA filing was the best route for them to take.

Luckily for all of us someone much more qualified in these legal matters (a judge) will decide. I am hoping for Youtube to prevail.

[Philosopher]

And you just stated WHY they are willing participants.

they admitted knowing infringing content was on their site and that that waiting for a DMCA filing was the best route for them to take

That makes them willing participants. They KNEW it was there, profited from it, and chose not to remove it until requested. That is NOT how the DMCA works.

To be protected by the DMCA they must NOT know about it. They did and did nothing until requests came in.

[Seb7]

'ViaCom hired people to upload copyrighted materials

Even if they did, it would only amount to a small percentage of the total amount uploaded by users in the same period.

Knowingly profiting from copyrighted materials

and what? Thats just a negative view point. Dont record shops also profit from copyright material?

[mack]

Dont record shops also profit from copyright material?

Thats how the music industry works. They are a middle man between the label and the consumer.

Mack.

[TheMadScientist]

That makes them willing participants. They KNEW it was there, profited from it, and chose not to remove it until requested. That is NOT how the DMCA works.

To be protected by the DMCA they must NOT know about it. They did and did nothing until requests came in.

Don't go confusing people with the facts like I keep trying to do...

Citing the law and the reasoning behind the complaints does no good whatsoever with some people because they don't believe what the document I kept citing says WRT 'turning a blind eye' equating to knowledge and it 'being the responsibility of the site owner to remove infringing content WITHOUT a DMCA complaint', even though the document also cites legal precedents for the enforcement of both claims...

Either of the preceding disqualifies a claimed infringer from DMCA protection because to have DMCA protection ALL conditions MUST be met. Not one or two, ALL.

Luckily for all of us someone much more qualified in these legal matters (a judge) will decide.

You can say that again... I'm soooo glad it will not be in the hands of those with an 'I like it so it must be right' bias, but will rather be based on the legality of the situation which takes into account the rights of the copyright owners and the responsibilities of those who do not follow the rules set forth to qualify for DMCA protection.

Will you actually change your position if Google or YouTube pays a huge settlement to keep the case out of court or actually loses or will you keep preaching the same view of 'they didn't do anything wrong'?

Also, if there wasn't any infringement or legal basis for Viacom's claim why did Google offer $560+ Mil to Viacom to cover all infringement? Do you think it's because they're nice and wanted to give some money to Viacom for nothing, or do you think it's more likely because they know they're in the wrong and will lose if the case goes to trial?

IMO You don't offer HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to anyone to settle something when there's no chance your wrong... It just doesn't pass my personal 'sniff test', but maybe the people at Google are just really nice or something so they offered to make a huge payment even though there's no chance they infringed on anyone's copyright, or shirked their responsibility according to the law?

IMO They made the offer referenced in the first linked article in this thread because they know they should have taken actions they did not according to the DMCA and tried to keep from having the matter made public... They offered $560+ Mil which included compensation for all past infringement, which means the 'there was no infringement' argument is totally without merit. There was. They knew there was (is). They know there was (is).

Some here are arguing a point Google did not even argue according to the offer for a settlement they presented... '... and to cover all past infringement' means there was infringement for sure. No question.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 11:38 pm (utc) on Mar 23, 2010]

[outland88]

Not to offend Demaestro but you have made it clear for many years, in other threads, you are opposed to all copyright law. Luckily most of the world has seen quite the opposite. I do not hold to the thinking that the “hard work of another” can be freely claimed by others without his/her distinct permission or for whatever reason. The hypothetical reasons you have dredged up past and present are just that. If the information is of as valuable a nature as you suggest free men will see that it is not hidden from the public. Other than that the seizure of another person’s works is illegal without just cause or legislative mandate.

I fear though the case will not be decided by law or judges but by the same greedy and arrogant men or saw themselves above the law and thereby created the case. The same greed that encourages more and that will likely lead to an out-of-court settlement. Rich little men showing a total lack of respect for the laws “we the people” created. Then the little man will loose as he usually does. If you read your own writings you are probably in opposition to even the minutest protections for the little guy more than many I have seen.

[TheMadScientist]

DMCA Protection?

Knowledge = Disqualification.
Profit from the Content = Disqualification.
Turning a blind eye = knowledge = Disqualification.
Anything other than storage at the direction of the user = Disqualification.
Not removing likely infringing content WITHOUT a complaint = Disqualification.

Why did Google offer Viacom $560+ Mil, which included wording to the effect of (if not exact) '... and to cover all past infringement'? Because they weren't infringing doesn't seem to be the reason, from over here.

[StoutFiles]

The same greed that encourages more and that will likely lead to an out-of-court settlement. Rich little men showing a total lack of respect for the laws “we the people” created.

It's a shame that this will probably happen.