Judge rules in favor of YouTube over Viacom

[Brett_Tabke]

[marketwatch.com...]
Viacom has divulged internal YouTube emails that seemed to acknowledge copyright infringement on the service, while Google has charged that Viacom itself has posted its material on YouTube for promotional purposes.

Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig said in a statement that the ruling Wednesday is "fundamentally flawed," adding that, "We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible."

---

Viacom's US$1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google's video-sharing site YouTube has been dismissed by the court, ending for now an acrimonious legal battle between the companies that has been going on for more than three years.

On Wednesday, Judge Louis L. Stanton, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted Google's motion for summary judgment. [computerworld.com...]

related:
ViaCom Finds Smoking YouTube Gun
[webmasterworld.com...]
Stalemate In YouTube Identity Protection Between Google and Viacom
[webmasterworld.com...]
EBay, Facebook, Yahoo, Want An End To Viacom YouTube Lawsuit
[webmasterworld.com...]

[Brett_Tabke]

As it should be. As is WebmasterWorld. If it had gone the other way............ a WebmasterWorld user with no morals about making illegal copies for themselves decides to upload a page from a book to WebmasterWorld and Brett nor any of the mods recognize it as being from a published book. Then the book publisher sees it. They could sue and have this site shut down for hosting content that violates someone's copyright. How can any webmaster think that would have been a good ruling? Honestly?

You have a point. That is not the point Viacom was making nor the proper analogy. The only proper analogy is if I were wholesale copying of books and posting them in the forums in order to get traffic out of the search engines.

Viacom was making the point that:
a) The founders of youtube admitted in emails that they were doing a bunch of uploading
b) The founders of youtube admitted that it was their goal to profit from the copyrighted material by creating massive traffic and selling the site at massive profit levels.
c) The founders knew and admitted that copyright infringement was the cornerstone of YouTube.

This was not a copyright argument by Viacom - it was one of theft and usage of the in-effect, SELLING of the stolen goods by selling Youtube at inflated profit levels.

The real winners of this lawsuit are all the Youtube competitors who have used restraint in the past. They can now shamelessly go out and pilfer and profit from everything hollywood has to offer. The games have now begun in earnest.

> expecting Google to screen every video is impossible.

The majority they can. Every video should go on hold until a group of Youtube employees view it. At worst, videos should only be seen by those that the poster authorizes. (aka, facebook)

...ps, lets chill on the inflammatory stuff.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:42 am (utc) on Jun 25, 2010]

[Demaestro]

Stout, you are a content thief. Nothing you say has any meaning behind it because you are morally bankrupt.

Credit cards required for Youtube? Stupid idea. I guess having bad credit means you can't post videos. I guess being 14 means you can't post videos. I guess credit card thieves would never create an account with stolen cards. Iranian women being beat in the streets that want to post the story better talk to VISA first.

Why continue to insist Youtube be the first place on the planet that stops all crime.

The most popular Youtuber as far as Views go is Fred, a minor who is likely to not have had a credit card when he started posting. Who by the way has gotten a movie deal from his Youtube channel.

YT is NOT a host in a million years.

Well today must be 1 in 2 million because The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says they are.

[ChanandlerBong]

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says they are.

American courts in putting money before justice shocker. Never done that before, have they? Ha!

[Demaestro]

nor the proper analogy

It wasn't an analogy, it is the perceived fallout/side-effect from the precedent that could have been set if Viacom had won.

It was the reason for the "friend of the court" filings by other such similar sites. If Viacom had won the scenario I laid out would have been highly probable and obviously other user generated content sites felt the same way because they filled motions in support of Youtube.

All those points about Viacoms claims about the founders are valid. But the founders are no longer the owner, nor were they the focus of the lawsuit. Viacom hands are as dirty in this case as the founders. IMO.

To pin the founders bad intentions on Google is not right. They shouldn't have waited until Google bought them to take this to court. It wreaks of a cash grab when someone waits for deep pockets to get involved before suing.

[Demaestro]

American courts in putting money before justice shocker.

Oh I see. So the law didn't really favor the side of Google. Google has big money so they won. Viacom has big money so they lost... wait what?

[Demaestro]

They can now shamelessly go out and pilfer and profit from everything hollywood has to offer.

No they can't. This ruling says nothing that a site can go out and actively upload content belonging to others. In no way does it say that.

Every video should go on hold until a group of Youtube employees view it.

It is estimated that it would take 1 person over 600 years to view all the videos on Youtube.

So to human review each video it would take 600 people 1 year. or 1200 people 1/2 a year. But that is only to view it. you then have to have a reference of every other media of the same type... video for video.

Lets say you have to compare each video to 1,000,000,000 other videos to see if the video you are reviewing violates. Lets say you find a video that was on the BBC 5 years ago so you take it down. It must be breaking BBC's copyright? Maybe not, maybe it was the producer who uploaded that video to Youtube after airing it on BBC. so now you have taken down a video because it was on BBC even though the user has sworn that he is the copyright holder.

Really all it would take is about 120,000 people to be 100% sure a video doesn't violate someone's copyright and they could probibly approve a video in about 2-3 years time.

It isn't possible to know with 100% accuracy if a video violates someone's copyright UNLESS the copyright holder tells you that it does.

[moTi]

don't feed the trolls

[ChanandlerBong]

Oh I see. So the law didn't really favor the side of Google. Google has big money so they won. Viacom has big money so they lost... wait what?

viacom market cap = 20 bn
google market cap = 120 bn

different animals entirely.

like comparing US economy to Mexico's.

[commanderW]

One big problem with a law that forces hosts or social media platforms to monitor, find, determine, and censor copyright infringements on their own, without waiting for the property owner to make a complaint, is that these entities do not have the legal authority to decide what is infringement, or to enforce such a judgement !

It may seem obvious to anyone that posting a tv show on youtube is a violation. But are you sure? posted by whom? Posted for what reason? Is it fair use? Is it any other contestable reason?

Courts are the only legal entity that can decide what is a violation of the law. While some violations may seem obvious, many others are not. If hosts and platforms are forced to make these determinations, they can be sued every time they are wrong by innocent people who will have their freedom of speech violated without any legal decision or action whatsoever. Due process would be violated if hosts and platforms were required to make these decisions on their own.

I have read posts on here where people believe they should be able to send google an email complaining that another site has stolen their content and that google should have to remove that site from their serps ! How is google supposed to determine what is fair use ?

I have read posts, and met designers in person, who believe that their html and css code should be copyrighted.

How are hosts and platforms etc. supposed to respond to people and situations like this?

All of this is the province of the law and the court room. Not corporate boards. We don't want a world where corporations or any other non-legislative entity is required to or empowered to decide what is a violation of the law and what is not.

To paraphrase a Ben Franklin quote that has been going around since the Patriot act -

Those who would give up freedom of speech to purchase a little temporary copyright protection deserve neither freedom of speech nor copyright protection! _{(c)1759-2010 by Benjamin Franklin and commanderW}

[StoutFiles]

Stout, you are a content thief. Nothing you say has any meaning behind it because you are morally bankrupt.

How am I a thief when I'm downloading something that Google has deemed appropriate for all to have? Wouldn't the real thief be the one making money off the content? When a movie is eventually flagged and removed, does Google give back any of that money they earned on the video? I'm not taking the file and selling it nor am I putting it online and surrounding it with ads, but clearly I am the thief.

Credit cards required for Youtube? Stupid idea. I guess having bad credit means you can't post videos. I guess being 14 means you can't post videos. I guess credit card thieves would never create an account with stolen cards. Iranian women being beat in the streets that want to post the story better talk to VISA first.

The credit card is an easy way to track someone, it has nothing to do with your money situation. A responsible 14 year old can post videos for sure if they have a parent backing them. I will assume most Iranian's with digital cameras and internet access would have sort of bank-related identification.

Why continue to insist Youtube be the first place on the planet that stops all crime.

By continuing with this business model they tell every other scraper site that stealing is ok if done in a user submitted format.

The most popular Youtuber as far as Views go is Fred, a minor who is likely to not have had a credit card when he started posting. Who by the way has gotten a movie deal from his Youtube channel.

I bet Fred has supporting parents.

What's the point of arguing this anymore though...your side already won Demaestro. It's done and any appeals will likely take years. I guess we'll just see what happens with other sites copying the format. Personally I won't touch user submitted content, I still think that for the time being that what will hold up for YouTube won't hold up for smaller sites.

[loner]

If YT can't do it legally, then the business model should be abandoned.

[thecoalman]

I use a free photo hosting site for some of my photo galleries. They check what new users upload and after that a sample. The size of the sample decreases as your "trust" increases.

How can they possibly tell they are yours?

[bears5122]

If YouTube didn't have unauthorized videos on it when it launched, no one would have cared. Lets be honest, most of the videos we watched or still do watch on the site are from copyright infringement. They built the site on that premise and even admitted so in e-mails.

It's a sad day for creators of original content. Now someone else can steal it, upload it, and give it away for free in seconds.

[micklearn]

It appears as though something has changed as a result of this case...I tried to view a number of Youtube videos, embedded on other sites today, and was denied access: 'This video has been removed due to copyrighted content by...' (or something similar) appeared in place of the promised video.

These were news items on large, well-known sites and related to very recent events. Think tennis, soccer and oil...I had to visit the sites (FIFA, for example) where the video originated in order to watch it. Not sure how this could benefit Youtube financially (except for avoiding future lawsuits) but it appears as though they are trying to remedy the copyright issues ASAP.

Dear, Judge,

Thank you for awakening the human/moral/emotional mentality in Google. (Hopefully, that's what happened...)

[kaled]

StoutFiles said

How am I a thief when I'm downloading something that Google has deemed appropriate for all to have

Wow, you have missed the point here completely...

The essence of Google's argument is that they have no control over content and cannot automatically detect what content is uploaded by copyrighted holders and what isn't. i.e. Google is not expressing any opinion as to whether a video is appropriate or not (their argument, not mine).

So, to answer your question, you can be a "thief" by knowingly watching films, etc. Remember, if you buy a stolen watch from a stranger in a bar, you can be charged with receiving stolen goods. It isn't necessary for the thief to tell you it's stolen.

If I start a real-world business that cannot operate legally for technical reasons, it would be closed down until those technical problems were solved. The idea that you can argue "we don't have the technology to operate legally" is utterly absurd. For instance...

If I built a night-club in a sinkhole but could not get a safety certificate because I could not evacuate the customers fast enough in the event of a fire, there is no way I would get away with the argument "I don't know how to evacuate them any faster". The judge would simply say "You should have thought of that before you built it".

As I and many others have pointed out, Google could operate legally without difficulty. They choose not to do so for reasons of profit and principle - they want to establish legal precedents that may help them make more money in the future (from other people's data).

Kaled.

[ChanandlerBong]

excellent post Kaled. Google does not need to have every video viewed manually by a huge swarm of Oompa-Loompas. There are other ways of avoiding or at least trying to minimise the presence of videos that infringe copyright, steps that have been outlined by others here, steps that G won't take because it would cost them money.

remember the figure: 80% of YT pageviews come from copyrighted material and G execs knew this beforehand and commented on how they were getting into a whole ton of quicksand. I'm sure even they can't believe they've won this case.

My hope is that companies now will move to pull all their content off YT and G will be left with videos of cats running around toilets chasing their tails. Or those really funny Downfall parodies. Man, those are a HOOT!

[IanKelley]

I don't think it's reasonable to compare YouTube to brick and mortar businesses or their legal issues.

The reason the internet has changed everything over the last decade is that it's fundamentally different than anything that came before it. I think, like the majority of the population, we need to embrace this.

It's not just YT's business model that's at stake here, it's the business model 100's of other sites as well.

If websites that host user uploaded content ever become responsible for copyrighted material before they have been made aware of it, they could no longer exist in their current form. A form that in many ways defines the internet.

This case isn't exactly about that, but it's close enough that it would be a dangerous precedent nonetheless, which I think is part of the reason it was dismissed, and definitely why so many other sites (despite being G and YT competitors) went on record against it.

[loner]

It's not just YT's business model that's at stake here, it's the business model 100's of other sites as well.

Too bad for them. They're laying to waste the right of artists to profit from their creative work. You can bet television production companies make sure that they have authorized permission to use every clip you see. There is no reason YT or 100s of other sites to be treated as an exception.

[Demaestro]

How am I a thief when I'm downloading something that Google has deemed appropriate for all to have?

Really?

I can help clear this up for you in a couple seconds.

1) Did you purchase the music from an authorized vendor?

-> If no you purchased stolen goods

2) Did you pay any money for the video or music you downloaded?

--> If no you stole it

Google hasn't deemed it appropriate. Are you really this ignorant or are you being coy I can't tell.

Google isn't saying the copyright infringment is ok, they aren't saying it is allowed on their site. They are saying they aren't the ones putting it there and therefor they shouldn't be the ones who pay the price.

What Google is saying is don't go after us, go after the actual infringer. That is you Stout, you are a copyright infringer. You take music you admit is infringing, and not only do you not just watch it as a one off... you take it a step further and actually copy and download the content you admit to knowing is illegal and you store that copy on your computer to use as you see fit.

If you do not understand how that makes you a content thief then there is less hope for you than I originally thought.

You have content on your computer that you copied from what you admit were illegal copies that you got online.

Could it be any more black and white? You are the same as people who buy bootlegged videos off the street. You know it is illegal and you do it anyway.

What is sad about you is you seem to think that Google not being responsible for the infringement of others somehow makes what you are doing less sleazy. It doesn't. You want to steal from artist and worse you want Google to pick up the tab for your theft.

The litmus test for this is easy.

Unless it is free from an authorized vendor.... then it goes like this:

Did you pay for it? If no, you stole it.

[moTi]

remember napster back in the days? boy was i miffed when they shut it down. lesson learned: just because something is there for years doesn't make it legal. enjoy it while it lasts.

there simply is no business case for a platform that wants to be a host without the obligation to supervise on the one hand - and earn money out of the user submitted content like a commercial publisher on the other hand. you can't have it both ways.

youtube is fueled by permanent copyright violations. there's no way around, if you'd shift the legal risk to the users, they'd stop uploading instantly and youtube is over.

what's left for platforms like youtube? paid hosting, paid content.

[StoutFiles]

Google isn't saying the copyright infringment is ok, they aren't saying it is allowed on their site. They are saying they aren't the ones putting it there and therefor they shouldn't be the ones who pay the price.

Haha, but they can build their brand and display ads off of content that they don't check if they have the rights to display.

What Google is saying is don't go after us, go after the actual infringer. That is you Stout, you are a copyright infringer. You take music you admit is infringing, and not only do you not just watch it as a one off... you take it a step further and actually copy and download the content you admit to knowing is illegal and you store that copy on your computer to use as you see fit.

But...but you said...

It isn't possible to know with 100% accuracy if a video violates someone's copyright UNLESS the copyright holder tells you that it does.

Hooray! That audio file I just took MIGHT be legal! There's no way to know with 100% accuracy, right? That file may have been approved for listening and recording, just like recording TV and radio is perfectly legal for personal use. You know, personal use...not making money off the file, like Google does. Phew, I'm not a thief after all!

I do some "thief" related things though. I DVR shows and skip the commercials. My browser has a pop up blocker. I just take and take! Have you ever done any of these things? Are you a content thief? I mean, you do like to support a cleverly disguised file sharing website. It's no different than any torrent site except they put the file in a player and display it for you. Do you support other torrent sites as well?

You seem to think that the small amounts of original content justify the vast amounts of copyrighted material. You seem to think that everyone lives by your honor system and will pay for content that is already thrown in your face for free. You seem to think that Google deserves to make money off of content that was deemed copyrighted by claiming ignorance. Everyone in this story...uploader, downloader, Google...they can all claim ignorance. Claiming ignorance is easy, and somehow it just held up in court. I've at least tried to offer some real solutions about people they can actually punish to fix this problem...like the file uploaders, because I'm sorry, as much as you hate this it's impossible to track people recording audio on their computer and punish them accordingly.

youtube is fueled by permanent copyright violations. there's no way around, if you'd shift the legal risk to the users, they'd stop uploading instantly and youtube is over.

Exactly. It's common sense, but the courts don't work that way.

[micklearn]

remember napster back in the days?

Still trying to figure out the difference between the old Napster and YouTube. Shouldn't the providing of an un- or semi-monitored platform that will eventually result in/encourage copyright infringements experience some dire consequences in the end? Maybe that's not exactly what the case was about, but I can imagine that the decision on this case has lit up future dollar signs in some people's minds.

[Demaestro]

Hooray! That audio file I just took MIGHT be legal!

Stout, double talk it and spin it all you want. You just used my words to justify your theft.

You admit freely you know the music you are downloading aren't legal copies.

You know what you are doing is wrong and you know you are not paying for music you use. You know it.

Shall I remind you a third time you aren't simply watching these videos you are downloading them and keeping copies for yourself to use as you please. So even if the music is from the content creator you are still stealing it by downloading it and making yourself a copy. But that is too complicated for you to understand as I have only laid it out for you 2-3 times now. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

The pride you display is an ugly trait.

You are the problem not Youtube. I adhore your actions and I think very little of your moral standing on this issue. In fact you have no moral ground to stand on at all.

Go steal your music and high five yourself for thinking it is somehow justified. It isn't.

[edited by: Demaestro at 3:49 am (utc) on Jun 26, 2010]

[tangor]

Admit there's some head scratching going on, but YT has their CYA in service on this one. BECAUSE: YT does not moderate the users. They immediately remove anything under a DMCA request. Sounds screwy, but makes perfect sense when all the OTHER possibilities of "how to do it" are explored.

Simply a case of "blind, deaf, and dumb" because we only provide a customer service... and we do not tell the customers (other than our TOS) what they can and can't do, and WE do not moderate or otherwise control what our customers do.

And if you THINK about it, that's the way you want the FCC and similar gubermint (sic) entities to deal with YOUR customer generated content. IE. don't hold MY feet to the fire because Joe Blow or Sweet Sue posted this copyrighted material!

[zett]

Still trying to figure out the difference between the old Napster and YouTube.

Well, there =are= differences: Youtube hosts the content (Napster didn't); Youtube transforms the content from its original into Flash (Napster didn't)...

No way this decisison holds up in the supreme court.

[skunker]

Man, I like YOUTUBE, but admit that it's really shady how you can view so much copyrighted content on there for free.

[Demaestro]

Well, there =are= differences: Youtube hosts the content (Napster didn't); Youtube transforms the content from its original into Flash (Napster didn't)

In the normal operation of Napster you end up with a copy of the file on your computer.

In the normal operation of Youtube you only view the video, you do not end up with your own copy.

This is an important difference. If Napster gets a take down notice on a file but I had already downloaded the file it being taken down from the Napster index wouldn't get rid of me having a copy for myself.

When Youtube gets a take down notice on a file that I favorite or bookmark in some fashion, when I return the file is gone and so is my use of it.

[StoutFiles]

In the normal operation of Napster you end up with a copy of the file on your computer.

In the normal operation of Youtube you only view the video, you do not end up with your own copy.

In the normal operation of (old)Napster the user would have to download file sharing software and is easily tracked by IP.

In the normal operation of YouTube the user can grab files with other websites for file conversion or prepackaged recording software, leaving no evidence behind. Also, there are zero viruses with YouTube files.

Yes, YouTube appears much cleaner than Napster, but to anyone who wants all the copyrighted gold on YouTube it is MUCH easier to take the content. The important difference is that YouTube makes it easier and liability free.

You're defining YouTube on how it SHOULD be used, not how it actually is used. YouTube is NOT 100% original content where no one takes files, just like torrent's are not 100% non-copyrighted files. YouTube is a torrent that displays the files you'll be getting and removes hosting duties. What more could you ask for?

[Demaestro]

You're defining YouTube on how it SHOULD be used

Wow you are maybe the most clueless person I have come accross. Do you ever do any fact checking before you post or do you just wake up in some manic state and you can't control what spews from your brain?

Actually Youtube defines it's terms, not me.

Not that a thief like you would have read it. We already know you don't follow it.

[youtube.com...]

You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content.

******

YouTube is a torrent

Snicker...

[StoutFiles]

Wow you are maybe the most clueless person I have come accross. Do you ever do any fact checking before you post or do you just wake up in some manic state and you can't control what spews from your brain?

Huh? Yes, I'm saying you're defining YouTube according to how it should be used, "should" being the legal standard defined by Google. I never claimed you made up your own definition for it, calm down. However, I now see you going to a website, rubbing your hands together, and diving in to the War and Peace novel known as Terms and Conditions for every site you go to. But hey, that's your personal choice.

If you're going to keep ignoring the facts that I am presenting to you, that many people are posting/taking YouTube content because of the easy, liability free method it is presented in, then you go right ahead and do that. If your defense to this argument is to suggest that people should just stop breaking the T&C and to insult the people who do it, then there's no point in arguing with you why the YouTube model needs to change to protect copyrighted content.