Viacom Yields to YouTuber Who DMCA Counterclaimed 113
Jason the Weatherman writes "Two weeks ago Viacom charged Christopher Knight with copyright infringement for posting on YouTube a clip from Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 that featured Knight's zany school board commercial. Two days ago YouTube reported to Knight that his clip was back up and that his account wouldn't be punished. What happened? Knight filed a DMCA counter-notification claim with YouTube: something that happens 'all too rarely' according to Fred von Lohmann at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From the article: 'Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That's the biggest problem we've encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube]. Most people have no idea that right exists.'"
No Idea at All (Score:5, Informative)
I certainly didn't. Here's a DIY [cmu.edu].
Re:VH1's theft (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't look like this is going to wind up in any kind of litigation, and for that I am thankful. If I can die someday without having sued or been sued, then I will die happy. This ends just as I had hoped it would: with the clip back up and, I like to think, with Viacom and me getting to shake hands and move on and wishing each other well. I'll certainly harbor no hard feelings toward Viacom for the past two weeks.
Re:Think of the goodwill (Score:5, Informative)
Link to the clip in question (Score:3, Informative)
It's a clip of a VH1 show that shows Chris' campaign ad for a school board.
- RG>
Re:A disservice to the rest of the world (Score:5, Informative)
There's no guarantee that Viacom has actually given in as the title of the article indicates.
Yes, the article seems to indicate that Viacom has backed down, but, unless I missed something, there was no communications from Viacom indicating that they backed down. The communication in question was from YouTube indicating that the content had been reposted as a result of the counter-notice.
Keep in mind that, under the DMCA rules, the service provider has to take the content down when given a notice, but it is equally responsible to post the content again if counter-notice is filed. At that point, it is up to the party filing the original notice to file an actual lawsuit to continue to pursue the take-down of the content. Just because they didn't file a lawsuit and get a temporary injunction to maintain the take-down in the 10 days before the counter-notice takes affect, doesn't mean that they don't intend to continue to pursue this issue.
Perhaps there's more communications that are not yet public from Viacom indicating that they don't intend to push forward with this, but just because the content gets re-posted doesn't mean that they have necessarily given in.
As is so often the case, IANAL.
Jeff
Copyright misperceptions (Score:4, Informative)
Usual disclaimer: IANAL. Most (or at least many) people have many misconceptions about copyright law, with far more important consequences.
One is that everything you distribute of your own creation is copyrighted (registration is not required except to back up your claim and allow for greater damages). How many people publish their videos to YouTube, get their content used (in full), and not realize that they have some control over whether that is a copyright violation?
Perhaps even more important, the very concept of fair use itself (in the U.S. at least). It wouldn't surprise me if people thought that many more things were copyright violations than really are. I'm sadly lacking in real survey info, but how many people have even heard of the four major tenets of fair use? If you haven't, read the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] including the law in the U.S.
As for DMCA counterclaims, I suspect most individuals either 1.) feel that they probably were infringing (even if they could legally argue fair use) or 2.) aren't willing to fight a big corporation in court. As with so many civil and criminal cases, it's much easier just to fold than to fight it. The system is largely designed that way.
One major problem with modern U.S. copyright law is just how big the gray area really is. Are EULAs legal? What can they legally restrict? Are "promotional items" labeled "not for resale" really binding to those who receive them (for an ongoing case about this challenge to the first sale doctrine, see the EFF's page [eff.org])?
Part of this gray area is that infringement is hard to define except on a case by case basis. Some will happily exploit any gray area, while others will stay far from it and end up bound by fairly restrictive rules. I've heard (on "On the Media", about a year ago) that movie producers will sometimes pay royalties in documentaries for things like ring tones and casual music recorded by the video camera. Common sense suggests that somebody's cell phone going off during a documentary is fair use, but some companies are afraid of litigation.
The unfortunate result is that since fighting back is too much risk or too much work, people will just cave in to the big media companies and their takedown notices.