YouTube Wins Against Viacom Again 49
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or just collapse comments that are longer than X number of lines. Then again, I don't think the slashdot staff has much time due to the large number of Bitcoin articles they need to get for the site.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Asymmetrical cost structure in the courtroom (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the main reason why the MAFIAA cases are still heating the courtrooms around the country is so cheap to sue somebody and so expensive to defend
When the justice system makes it so easy to attack someone and so hard to defend oneself, of course someone gonna abuse it to their own advantage
Re: (Score:3)
And yet there are those who abandon reason and all available data and conclude that this must be by mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not by mistake, it's by necessity.
The costs of attacking vs defending are actually pretty similar(in fact I'd suggest that someone like Sony actually spends vastly more in legal fees than most of the people they sue). The major cost difference is the cost of losing, it's much more expensive for someone defending against a lawsuit to lose than it is for someone initiating a lawsuit to lose.
This is deliberate, by design, and necessary. If you penalize people for losing lawsuits you basically create a wor
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not by mistake, it's by necessity."
This would all be true ONLY if the copyright trolls could not name hundreds to thousands of Does in a single lawsuit.
Granted, judges have become increasingly wary of this tactic. Nevertheless, they never should have allowed the joining of the suits anyway. There really isn't any legal basis for it. There is one half-assed theory they have pushed for justification, but that's all it is: half-assed.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some gray area there.
Getting the identity of whoever is responsible for an internet account is not a criminal charge and really only requires probably cause. There's some justification, given the similarity of the nature of the evidence and the relatively low burden of proof required that lawsuits for the purpose of identification can and should be joined. We don't really want to waste the courts time with a thousand instances of "we have this IP downloading this file at this time" "Ok, here's a cou
Re: (Score:3)
It's not by mistake, it's by necessity.
Well, no. Only because we have a deliberately baroque legal system do we even need so many lawyers and so much legal process. We could get done everything the legal system needs to do with much less fanfare and expenditure if lawyer were not the larval form of politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In any legal system you're going to have two parties who don't agree on what the outcome ought to be and if you penalize someone for trying to get justice when they acted in good faith you're always going to crush the little guy. It doesn't really matter whether you have lawyers or some sort of perfect judge listening the arguments, it's always going to come down to a scenario where people act in good faith but are wrong. If we punish those people it will stifle legitimate grievances and if we d
Re: (Score:1)
The ruling in the lower courts is trouble some. Because the Judge defended YouTube, saying that the company or web site, did not have anything to do with its users posting, nor does YouTube endorse posting, infringing content. However Viacom and the other Big Media "cartels" may decide to go after the "USERS" of YouTube that posted the content.
YouTube has done nothing to protect its users by saying to a Judge "don't look at us", But YouTube has never had a problem follow DMCA letters to a T, or complaints o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
.. is so cheap to sue somebody and so expensive to defend
Well in general the cost to sue someone is relatively the same cost to defend. But when one side is richer, they can outlast the poor side. No matter who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say the costs are much different, but rather the resources behind the accuser and defendant are vastly different. RIAA vs. Grandma comes to mind, though I think there was MPAA vs. Dead Guy at some point.
There are plenty of other deficiencies, of course, but not having access to a public defense attorney for civil actions is an automatic kick to the groin to the average person vs. a corporation/trade group/etc. Not that I'm advocating civil public defense attorneys.
Duality (Score:5, Informative)
So posting a copyrighted video on youtube does not endanger google but posting a link to a copyrighted video on youtube will get you millions in fines, confiscated domain, and possible prison time? They haven't stuck it to the cartel hard enough yet.
Now, revenge (Score:5, Funny)
That's a new one... (Score:3)
Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again.
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
Re:That's a new one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"
I'll buy that interpretation, but it didn't jump out to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.
Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)
It's a pity you didn't mix it the other way. "Copyright cartel" would have worked just fine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
Yeah.
And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.
And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the poster meant "copyright maximalist", a.k.a. "copyright taliban", "copyright extremist", etc...
Need to litigate *with prejudice* (Score:2)
IANAL, (and not even American), but if I understand US law correctly, filing *with prejudice* is one way of getting the re-appeal, re-appeal, re-appeal process to come to a quick and grinding halt in a permanent fashion. An upper court judge supervises the findings of a lower court judge, and the defendants must put up a very resounding defence that satisfies both. If both judges are satisfied, then its 'one ruling to judge them all'. There are no grounds for appeal, and final really means final. Usuall
Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion (Score:3)
But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.