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'."
so... (Score:4, Interesting)
I KNEW the lifeblood of the internet was pr0n!
I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough credit (Score:5, Interesting)
The DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough credit on /.
While I'm no fan of the DMCA on the whole, I actually like the takedown provisions. They provide valuable protection for ISPs.
My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused. The law itself provides a remedy against abuse. Those abusing the law can be charged with perjury. Unfortunately, no one has ever been charged with perjury for false take down notices, so the abuse continues. It would only take a few perjury charges a year to keep everyone honest...
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:5, Interesting)
What I've always wondered is why prostitutes didn't set up a similar model. Obtain a business license to sell some sort of product like...I don't know...yarn. Have a certain price on the yarn like $300 and collect the appropriate taxes and what not on the yarn...after all, you're free to charge whatever you want for your products. After you sell an actual good, then have sex with the purchaser. They aren't paying you for sex, they bought item X and incidental to that purchase you decided to have sex with them. Much like the actresses in porn movies are not being paid to have sex, they're having sex incidental to their role as a character in a sexually-themed story.
It'd be an interesting tactic, but meh...probably too much work for the average working girl I suppose. Easier to do it on the side and hope you don't get caught I guess.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, if you look at sites like puretna.com they have a list of video publishers whose videos you are not allowed to upload. I presume this is because they have been asked not to publish those torrents.
It just looks to me like the porn folks aren't quite as sue-happy.
Re:YouTube & Viacom Responses (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Of course that is not why the YouTube case will be lost. The YouTube case will be lost because the California judge was right.
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.
Thing is, they can say anything they want to in a press release. In court, though, it's not so easy. If you make factual claims that aren't so, you will get burned. And if you make legal arguments that aren't supportable, you will get burned. Unfortunately, all Viacom has to work with is factual claims that aren't so, and legal arguments that aren't supportable. The end result of the YouTube case, if it is not settled, will be a multimillion dollar attorneys fee award against the plaintiffs.
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.
You are right, I stand corrected. I had remembered it as being a gang of plaintiffs, but actually it was just a few.
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.
Well point me to some monstrous decision, of recent vintage, supporting your thesis (and in doing so please confine yourself to cases where the defendant could afford a lawyer).
No (Score:3, Interesting)
The "Safe Harbor" provisions of the DMCA only protect unmoderated public machines. If you were to give your users the ability to place whatever music files they wished on your computer, then you are protected.
You putting files on your computer and sharing them will not allow you to take advantage of the "Safe Harbor" provisions.
SirWired
Re:I like how they can skirt the laws (Score:4, Interesting)
My state is in a different union than the American. I suppose it can be confusing I used mileage and not something metric. ;-)
You make a point I hadn't considered yet, although I'd like to add that most of these laws predate significant use of the Internet (or even photography itself, but I'd have to verify that). And in (nation) states where abortion is still illegal consensual sex could also cause permanent damage. And that mere possession alone isn't damaging and therefore should not be illegal, especially not in a consenting case.
Anyway, the whole problem is that age is completely arbitrary, period. I know quite a few people my age (31) who I don't think will ever reach the maturity, rationality and awareness of some of my teenaged friends.
Some years ago I got a call from a fourteen year old friend who had just fought of an ex-boyfriend because she refused to have unprotected sex and then telling you "I'm going to stay away from dodgy folk like him". Quite an eye-opener when that same week you learn of another STD someone your own age contracted.
I've been trying to fight ageism ever since.
Re:YouTube & Viacom Responses (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course that is not why the YouTube case will be lost. The YouTube case will be lost because the California judge was right.
The difference between what is morally right and what is financially backed to be right has slowly become irrelevant for my country's justice system. Do I sound Jaded? Do I sound a bit like Philip Nolan [wikipedia.org] in my disgust for our "justice department?" From shill trials and hearings against big oil/tobacco to using political or ideological criteria to hire new lawyers into the department, it's a bright shining example for my country's ebbing greatness.
These days, the few court cases that seem to make sense come from the lowest courts in the country. The highest courts are too busy licking the soles of some lobbyist's shoes or siding with a political party to do their jobs.
YouTube maybe morally correct but Viacom is monetarily correct--make no mistake about that. A thousand lawyers will find a way.
Thing is, they can say anything they want to in a press release. In court, though, it's not so easy. If you make factual claims that aren't so, you will get burned.
That's strange, wasn't it you who showed us [slashdot.org] that judges were taking advice from 'expert' witnesses about IP addresses in Kazaa and using those logs to find defendants guilty? Screenshots and text files that would take me five minutes to doctor cost citizens $20,000 to avoid the legal battle! And those are 'factual claims!?'
... nor will the judge need to know how ad supported revenue works. Viacom will point to services like NBC.com or ABC.com or maybe even Hulu on how ad supported licensed content should work and it's going to take one example of a full episode of SouthPark on YouTube to make the judge agree.
Viacom will convince the judge that YouTube is creating revenue for Google using content that isn't licensed. And they won't have a hard time convincing a judge that doesn't understand the technology behind it
Well point me to some monstrous decision, of recent vintage, supporting your thesis (and in doing so please confine yourself to cases where the defendant could afford a lawyer).
You're right that there hasn't been a lot where the defendant could afford a lawyer but I've already flogged the issue of money making someone right into the ground.
I'm not attacking you here. I'm not attacking YouTube here. Hell, I'm not even really attacking Viacom. I'm criticizing our Justice Department in several regards. Don't take this personally!
Re:DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough cre (Score:3, Interesting)
> My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused.
Takedown notices could and would be sent in the absence of the DMCA.
> The law itself provides a remedy against abuse.
Which would not exist without the law.
Re:YouTube & Viacom Responses (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not attacking you here. I'm not attacking YouTube here. Hell, I'm not even really attacking Viacom. I'm criticizing our Justice Department in several regards. Don't take this personally!
I didn't. And I know you didn't take my disagreement with you personally either. I'm a big fan of yours. I just love a good argument.
I don't mean to say our justice system is perfect. Far from it, I've recently been quite critical [blogspot.com] of the way the RIAA cases are being handled, and made 15 specific suggestions on how the federal judiciary could improve its track record and provide a more level playing field. But I will tell you that in the big cases -- where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering -- the results have not been so terrible. And even in the RIAA cases, where the defendants are invariably overmatched, the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.
By the way, if you think Io v. Veoh didn't worry Viacom, why do you think they requested permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Io? The judge denied their request [beckermanlegal.com] (PDF), but no doubt read the brief and heard everything Viacom, and its lawyers, had to say. I don't think he was impressed.
Viacom can say whatever it wants to say in its press releases. But I don't think Judge Stanton will be even remotely impressed. He will want to know why they tied up his docket, when they had nothing.