AfterDawn: Tech news

Viacom lawyer strikes back at Google, YouTube

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 17 Mar 2007 18:10 User comments (6)

Viacom lawyer strikes back at Google, YouTube After it emerged earlier this week that Viacom Inc. had filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google over its YouTube video sharing site, Google was quick to claim it had protection under the "safe harbor" provisions set present in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Google also said that the lawsuit would not alter its service or distract it from its work.
However, Viacom lawyer, Don Verrilli, has struck at Google's claim of protection under DMCA and at the law itself. Firstly, he said that Google does not fit the criteria needed to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions. He said that under Section 512 of the DMCA, a "service provider" must be unaware of infringing activity and must not make direct financial gain from it.

He believes that Google is aware of the mass-infringement on the site and has no problem filter content for any distribution partners. "YouTube has done a lot of social good that comes with a very significant problem," Verilli said. "And the significant problem that comes along with the good is that there is an enormous, enormous amount of copyrighted video works uploaded onto YouTube and viewed on a staggeringly high level by YouTube users."

He also feels that Viacom and other content companies are in an unfair position under the DMCA. "What that means is we've got to employ an army of people around the clock who do nothing but monitor YouTube, catalog those works, (send takedown requests)...and find out the next day that the works go back up," he said

Source:
News.com

Previous Next  

6 user comments

117.3.2007 18:15
pstamer
Inactive

C'mon Viacom. Just let it go. These disputes are rapidly aging.

217.3.2007 21:05

Originally posted by Don Verrilli:
[...] we've got to employ an army of people around the clock who do nothing but monitor YouTube, catalog those works, (send takedown requests)...and find out the next day that the works go back up
Exactly :)! A+++. Good work, you've uncovered the fact, now get used to it.

318.3.2007 6:28

Quote:
He also feels that Viacom and other content companies are in an unfair position under the DMCA. "What that means is we've got to employ an army of people around the clock who do nothing but monitor YouTube, catalog those works, (send takedown requests)...and find out the next day that the works go back up," he said
exerpts from my comments last week about the billion dollar viacom v google lawsuit:

Quote:
in the eyes of the law youtube is a neutral intermediary
Quote:
the law in america has been quite leanient on sites where users post things, even if some of those things are bad.
Quote:
uploading videos to youtube without being traced is infinitely easier than sharing them over p2p without being traced, its one of the reasons the media giants are so ape shit over youtube. the laws dont match whats happening. google just found all the right loopholes, and ten years from now when bureaucracy finally catches up with reality they will have found 10 new loopholes.
its nice to see the experts agreeing with me a week later. they probably fired off the lawsuit in a fit of rage, THEN actualy closly studied the laws and found out they are fucked and now the tune they are singing is "change the laws!"

viacom, you truly will be remeberd as a drain on society and a burdon on developing technology.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Mar 2007 @ 6:29

418.3.2007 7:31

georgeluv
whole eps might not be legit,but ads,clips and other odds and ends can be showen right?
what is the law regarding odds and ends?

its not like their sellign the items directly,hell anything thats boardcasted threw the air waves can be picked up for free if you have the device for it...

518.3.2007 14:13

Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:
georgeluv
whole eps might not be legit,but ads,clips and other odds and ends can be showen right?
what is the law regarding odds and ends?
doesnt matter, your missing the point. youtube does not post these videos. i think even clips are illegal to openly post its still copywrite infringement. people sell short clips of songs all the time to movies, 5 seconds of a beatles song can set you back a cool mil or more.

Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:
its not like their sellign the items directly,hell anything thats boardcasted threw the air waves can be picked up for free if you have the device for it...
although there was some old ass law passed way back in like 1920 something saying the government could not regulate the reception of radio signals or the like it happened. think about it like the medical marijuana law in cali but reversed in terms of federal and state law contradicting each other. some states make radar detectors illegal, thus violating this federal law. im not sure but this question may have been answered in some of those direct tv lawsuits that happened a few years ago. you wanna see corruption, look at whichever judge who actualy let those lawsuits fly.

one more thing:
Quote:
Firstly, he said that Google does not fit the criteria needed to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions. He said that under Section 512 of the DMCA, a "service provider" must be unaware of infringing activity and must not make direct financial gain from it.
google aint a service provider and that section does not even apply to this situation, that was old, made for isp-provided news groups and such. google does not make a financial gain from copy write infringement it makes money from all its legitimate uses. the fact that these illegally posted files show up does not mean intent, its just and unfortunate side affect. changing it would mean regulation of how people search for information on the net, basically full on Orwellian censorship. google actively takes down files and reports ips when asked, like i said before google does everything required of them by law.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Mar 2007 @ 14:22

618.3.2007 16:24

One word, "GREED"

from American Heritage Dictionary
- An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive