Case Against Video-Sharing Site Dismissed 131
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A California copyright infringement case brought by an adult video maker against a video sharing web site, Veoh Networks, has been thrown out, based upon the 'safe harbor' provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ('DMCA'). In a 33-page decision (PDF), the Court concluded that Veoh was covered by the DMCA, and had carried out its duties to comply with takedown notices in a reasonable manner. The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments showing possible ways that users could do an end-around, saying that the law requires 'reasonable' compliance, rather than perfection, and noted that the DMCA is 'designed to facilitate the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age'."
YouTube & Viacom Responses (Score:5, Informative)
"It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights," YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine said in a statement. "YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online."
And this quote from Viacom:
"Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement â" conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA."
Probably not far from what one would expect either to say but I'm afraid this isn't going to do much for YouTube.
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not an expert but I do have a few points that might help you out.
1) Prostitution laws vary greatly from one area to another. Even municipally. For example, my city issues escort licenses to effectively legalize prostitution and to "help protect the safety of sex workers" but street walking (the ones you see on tv where coked out whores are going up to cars) are still illegal. In some places it's ok to advertise but not to solicit directly. In other areas prostitution itself is legal but advertising it is not etc. So it's not as simple as "prostitution is illegal". It depends on the area and there are varying degrees of legality. The Wikipedia article on prostitution [wikipedia.org] has lots more info.
2) Pornography is considered an artistic expression and the US constitution and Canadian charter among other bill of rights in other countries protect free speech. In the 70's there were supreme court cases in the US that helped set precedent protecting pornography under the federal-granted right to free speech.
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:2, Informative)
One thing I never understood, why is prostitution (paying someone to have sex with you) illegal but making pornography (paying someone to have sex with you or another person in front of a camera) is legal? Would a John be able to beat a pandering rap by waving a camera and saying he was planning on filming the act and putting it on the internet? I like Carlin's thinking on the matter. "Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?" Only in Vegas.
They are paid as actors, not as prostitutes. The sex is considered consensual.
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This should help Google vs Viacom? (Score:4, Informative)
One would think that this builds up Google's defense against Viacom. I hope Google doesn't back down or cut a deal with Viacom. This case is proof they are in the right.
I agree. YouTube is clearly entitled to the "safe harbor" afforded by the DMCA, and the Viacom case should be thrown out. The mere pendency of such cases partially defeats the purpose of the DMCA, since it costs time and money to defend this nonsense.
The best thing about Io v. Veoh is that it dismisses the case on summary judgment, avoiding the necessity for a trial. Hopefully the Courts will start dismissing these types of cases even earlier, at their very outset.
Re:DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough cre (Score:3, Informative)
There was a recent Slashdot article where a judge ruled that the sender of the takedown notice must consider fair use rights. I think that will minimize the number of frivolous cases where someone just wants to suppress free speech.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)
I know the DMCA is a attack to free speech. It has been abused many times to take down parodies or something someone did not personally like.
I respectfully disagree. It is not the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, it is abuse [blogspot.com] of the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, and this is something that needs to be stopped [blogspot.com].
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:3, Informative)
Stop right there. The constitution does not grant any rights, it protects them. The difference is huge, especially when it comes to bill of rights issues.