03-18-2010, 08:40 PM
|
|
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 11,500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanker
very interesting read! How many content producers submit their content to the tubes?
|
Good point. Looks like Viacom is one of them ...
From the link above:
The situation was so confusing that Viacom lawyers weren't able to fully identify which clips were authorized and which were not for this lawsuit; Viacom even had its own YouTube account suspended over confused copyright notices.
This fact is powerfully demonstrated by examining the countless errors that Viacom and many other content owners make in sending takedown notices to YouTube. YouTube routinely received takedown requests that were subsequently withdrawn after the media companies who sent them realized that their notices had been targeted to content that they themselves had uploaded or authorized. haBoth before and well into this litigation, Viacom’s own monitoring agent, BayTSP, identified as “infringing” many videos that had in fact been posted to YouTube with Viacom’s permission. These selfha-inflicted infringement claims led to counterhanotices from Viacom’s marketers, sheepish retractions from BayTSP, and even to the suspension of Viacom’s own authorized YouTube accounts for supposed copyright violations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
If Youtube is manipulating the content before it goes up on the site they may no longer get the safe harbor exception. These changes may make it more difficult for companies that steal content to hide behind DMCA. All of this may end to the downfall of Youtube or to its radical change.
|
Maybe, maybe not ...
But there's a second argument. Viacom also claims that YouTube is not covered by the law for a more fundamental reason: it is not engaged in "storage," as a file locker might be, but is in the business of displaying and broadcasting content, which also includes making numerous back-end copies. This behavior involves YouTube in "direct infringement of copyrights."
This appears to be the weakest part of Viacom's case, and it's unclear why the company would bother making it in the wake of a federal court's recent Veoh ruling. That decision noted (correctly, in our view) that automated back-end processes to cache or transcode or display a video did not involve the site operator in such direct infringement.
|
|
|