TV Networks Don't Want DMCA Protection For YouTube 197
sburch79 writes "A brief filed in the Viacom v. Google case asserts that the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions were never meant to apply to sites like YouTube. It also goes on to say the if safe harbor were given to these sites, it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material."
In fairness to the cronies... (Score:5, Informative)
The summary and the article linked within are (purposely) doing a poor job of representing the actual position of the attorneys. I wasn't comfortable thinking they were that blatantly stupid and greed, and so dug a little deeper:
(From http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/viacoms-friends-lend-support-in-youtube.html [blogspot.com])
Viacom's friends lend support in YouTube case [blogspot.com]
Two groups supporting major copyright owners have filed amicus briefs in support of Viacom in its copyright suit [justia.com] against Google and YouTube.
The first [scribd.com], filed on behalf of a coalition including ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Disney, NBC Universal, Warner Bros., and others, makes three main points:
- Congress enacted the DMCA to combat -- not protect -- copyright infringement;
- The DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor does not provide a defense to inducement liability [cornell.edu];
and
- Section 512(c)(1)(B)'s language denying the safe harbor where a site derives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service
provider has the right and ability to control such activity," should be interpreted consistent with the "right and ability to control" standard from common law vicarious liability.
The second [scribd.com], from the free market-oriented Washington [wlf.org]
Legal Foundation, focuses on the legislative history and purpose of the DMCA's safe harbors, arguing that the law mandates a "shared responsibility" among copyright owners and online service providers in addressing infringement, and does not relieve sites like YouTube of all obligations to fight illegal use of others' works, especially while profiting from it.
So their argument goes a little deeper than 'waaaaaaaa' as some of my fellow slashdotters have summarized it.
Against the actual argument, however, I think YouTube's most logical response would be to stop policing the content themselves at all. The position here seems to be that YouTube is a facilitator by not completely blocking copywritten content. A fair response would be for YouTube to step out of that role and give the content providers the power to do this directly. Vis-a-vi, allow the big media companies to sue those providers directly. By the way, if you haven't noticed, the providers are the individuals making content and posting it to YouTube... you know, the end users.
Re:In fairness to the cronies... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
Or, IIRC, in the case of Metallica: Their label sent a take-down notice, had the music video pulled, and then re-uploaded a different version.
Bittersweet irony.
Misleading summary (Score:3, Informative)
The argument that "it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material" is not at all the primary one in the amicus curae being discussed [scribd.com] - go ahead, read it for yourself (yes, yes, I'm new here etc).
Rather, they argue that DMCA is supposed to protect providers only in cases of "innocent infringement", i.e. when they're not aware that material they host is infringing. They furthermore claim that, in YouTube's case, Google does know, or reasonably suspects (which is "good enough"), that most of material being posted onto the site is infringing, even if they do not know that about every individual video being posted - they refer to it as "willful blindness". They furthermore claim that Google, while knowning this, essentially ignores that, and "abuses" DMCA safe harbor by only performing post-infrongement take-down by request, while profiting from ads displayed while playing all those infringing videos before they're taken down.
I believe this is a reference to those claims -made by YouTube owners and Google managers in private during the take-over, which we've seen in previous court documents - with stats for overall count of infringing material (which was way over 50%).
Now, whether this is a valid legal argument or not, I do not know. They do reference DMCA there, as well as some relevant court cases, which they claim support this point of view, but, of course, we'd need a legal expert to clarify that.