Lawsuit over YouTube video: It's what everyone's watching
A look at what's at stake in Viacom Inc.'s $1 billion copyright infringement suit against Google.
from the March 23, 2007 edition
Page 3 of 3
"We feel we go above and beyond the DMCA law," says Glenn Brown, product counsel for YouTube and Google. Those additional measures include an automated takedown tool that can provide a quick search for copyrighted content, which YouTube offers to anyone who asks, he says. YouTube also has a 10-minute limit on videos, which limits abuse; a three-strikes provision that cancels the account of any three-time rule breaker; and a digital "hashing" feature that records when a file has been taken down to help prevent re-uploading of the same or similar material, he says.
"The DMCA ... has struck a very nice balance between copyright holders and safe harbor for neutral hosts of content, like us," says Mr. Brown. The law rightly requires copyright holders to be the police, not YouTube, he adds, noting it's hard to know the copyright status of a work. "We need [copyright holders'] help to know what is authorized and what's not."
Experts on intellectual property rights disagree about who has the stronger case.
Because YouTube is only a conduit for people to post videos, it can't be held liable for the content on the site unless it refuses to remove clips at the request of a copyright holder, says Larry Iser, an intellectual property lawyer and a partner at Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert in Santa Monica, Calif.
Nor does Viacom have the right to demand that YouTube screen its site for Viacom content and remove it, says Mr. Iser. The entertainment company can ask the website to remove only those copyrighted videos that Viacom finds. "Congress chose to balance the rights of intellectual property holders with the rights of an Internet service provider to run a business," he says.
But David Axtell, intellectual property specialist at the law firm Leonard, Street, and Deinard in Minneapolis, says YouTube probably violates DMCA's "safe harbor" section because "safe harbor" prohibits financial benefit from video posting.
"If you go back to the dawn of YouTube, it is hard to say with a straight face that it became popular for quirky, homemade videos," says Mr. Axtell. "YouTube became popular because of one-stop video shopping for copyrighted stuff off programming."
Still others say the suit amounts to Viacom posturing to force YouTube into a pact to distribute Viacom content. "This has to be seen as a mating ritual, the precursor dance before getting down to brass tacks on dollars and coordination of strategy," says Mr. Sigal.
RSS feed
