Case Against Video-Sharing Site Dismissed

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'."

Different results

[Exanon]

I am sorry to be so cynical as to suggest that if the claim had been brought by the MPAA, the result would have been different.

Contradictory laws

[suck_burners_rice]

The DMCA should be repealed and replaced with a law that compels people to make illegal copies of copyrighted material. This way, if you obey this law, you'll be infringing on copyright. If you don't obey this law, you'll be breaking the law. Then, the government can selectively enforce one, the other, or neither, depending on who is friends with whom and deliberately messing with those who look at a government official or copyright holder the wrong way. Mutually contradictory laws are the only way to go in the new millenium, especially as our physicists learn the ins and outs of M-theory.

Re:YouTube & Viacom Responses

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I read this in Wired and found this quote from YouTube:

"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.

eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent? Do you really think the judge in Viacom v. Youtube [blogspot.com] cares about the press releases?

If so, I beg to differ. Not all the press releases in the world can deflect the clear and faultless reasoning exhibited by Judge Lloyd. We are having a sudden [blogspot.com] outbreak [blogspot.com] of sanity [blogspot.com] and respect for the plain meaning of statutes [blogspot.com]. This is so important. It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.

IMHO.

Re:I like how they can skirt the laws

[Rob Kaper]

"Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?" Only in Vegas.

And other countries, of course.

But even though it's not new, your point can't be stressed often enough. I also really don't understand how worker unions and health care for legal hookers is so much worse than drug-addicted underage kids getting pounded at trucker stops.

And I don't understand why I can fuck the shit out of a 16 year old in any way she conscents to, legally, yet a topless picture of her might get me in trouble for possesion of child porn.

(YMMV.)

Re:YouTube & Viacom Responses

[eldavojohn]

eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent?

Ray Beckerman, with all due respect, that is not at all how I see it. I have just resigned myself to the fact that a court case with a billion dollars at stake will not be lost because a California judge knocked down an infringement case about ten pornographic videos that were immediately taken down anyhow. Lawyers do not say goodbye to a billion that easily!

You are the lawyer however! It would bring me great joy to hear otherwise but I would expect Viacom's lawyers to play the same card they played in their press release--attempting to convince the judge that there are too many differences between these cases to consider Io Vs Veoh to be precedence.

It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.

The MPAA has a suit against YouTube? What is it? All I know of is Viacom's suit and, though a member, they are not every single Movie Picture Association of America Member.

Also, I think the 'nail in the coffin' phrase is being used to soon here. The cases I've been following seem to point to the entire US Justice System being in **AA's pet attack dog in witch trials. While there's been a few cases of common sense, the vast majority of cases are being settled out of court because the judge is a corporate pawn and insolent technology-wise.

Re:I like how they can skirt the laws

[MozeeToby]

And I don't understand why I can fuck the shit out of a 16 year old in any way she conscents to, legally.

Please note, this highly dependent upon where you live. In Wisconsin, for instance, having sex with a 16 year old is a felony. Having sex with a 17 year old is still a misdemeaner.

Of course, if I understand things correctly that is exactly where the contradiction comes from. The age of consent is a subject of law that is determined largely on a state by state basis where as child pornography is enforced at the federal level. The US government has decided that 18 is the age of consent, where as you state has decided 16 is.

Incedently, I would argue that having your picture taken and potentially spread around the internet would be much more damaging to a 16 year old than having conscentual sex with your partner. If the proper percausions are taken, having consentual sex has few long term repercussions. Having pictures or movies potentially distributed to your friends, family, future employer could be permanantly damaging.

DMCA

[Mooga]

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'."

I'm sorry, but which DMCA is he reading? Because the last time I read the DMCA, it was written to do the complete opposite.

And once again...

[jimand]

...porn leads the way in internet progress!

Re:I like how they can skirt the laws

[brainnolo]

Second, pr0n teaches nothing about how to maintain a relationship.

Actually that's not the point of pr0n.