Viacom has posted its Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Undisputed Facts on the inapplicability of the DMCA safe harbor defense in its copyright case against YouTube.
And here's YouTube's brief.
I'll post other papers, including supporting documents, as soon as I can get them. And analysis later.
(Updated.)
Thursday, March 18, 2010
5 comments:
Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I read some of the fillings. Google had at least the form of a summary judgment motion but Viacom certainly wasn't making a case using "undisputed facts". Also it does read a bit like they know they are behind and might loose.
ReplyDeleteWhats at stake here is more than the outcome of this case. If Viacom gets the law changed in their favor, $1B seems like a bargain. Like Google should make an offer of settlement and mitigate the risk. The amount might appeal enough to the shareholders of Viacom. Otherwise, this could be rather harmful case law that might be overturned when its too late for a market advantage.
Having said that reading the quotes as presented it would seem that there is little doubt YouTube refused to address the issue even in a minimal way. Analogously, phone companies use various algorithms to track fraud. The argument they couldn't do anything about it is unfathomable.
On the other hand I think Viacom is arguing both sides of the same argument. The are essentially asking for YouTube to be their proactive and intelligent copyright enforcer. If YouTube actually implemented the alleged "ability" to block that was "practical" they would be running an editorial site not a hosting site. The content no matter how user submitted would still be a product of their human involvement. Yet they argue this is the requirement for DMCA exemption.
In the end it seems that both parties are getting what they wanted. Publicity on our dime. Its what they are in the business of selling.
Dear Ben,
ReplyDeleteForget this civil case for a moment. PLEASE.
Are you familiar with the criminal statutes of this country as they relate to willful copyright infringement?
If just a small fraction of this week's disclosures and your reporting is true, how is it that ALL of these referenced YouTube co-founders and key employees are not behind bars ... along with the entire executive team and Board of Directors of Google?
The PRO IP Act of 2008 allocated money to put these kinds of people in jail. I will find out in my scheduled meetings up in D.C. in late March and April why the money given to the DOJ, Copyright Czar, and others is not being used as intended.
How can anyone in this country expect for China, Russia, and Brazil to clean up their piracy acts when we turn our heads away from behavior such as this and allow piracy to turn three spoiled and obviously crooked teenagers into billionaires?
I have never been as disgusted with anything in this country (Wall Street scandal included) in my entire life and I've been at this technology game for over 30 years now.
I think the honest business people and taxpayers of the United States of America deserve some answers ... and NOW!
What about you?
George Riddick
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
Judge Stanton is not a fan of double-talk. He's sharp, decisive, and will hold people to the words they used when they weren't litigating. Therefore, I can't see how YouTube gets past Viacom's first 25 pages. Judge Stanton will read those quotes, and--especially since they were not produced in discovery and Google execs claimed amnesia in depositions--he will not believe a word that YouTube says in their 100 page brief; not a single word. Google would be wise to settle VERY VERY quickly.
ReplyDeletei really can't stand viacom anymore. at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anonymous. Stanton has shown his penchant for these sort of cases. If only he was on the juvenile court bench: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/03/19/a-victory-for-free-speech-and-hilariously-bad-lawyer-advertisements/
ReplyDeleteSigh, such is life.