The "Viacom v. youtube" Situation, A History (2 of 3)

This is the second of three posts involving relevant situations. This involves a site which hosts allegedly infringing content.

Parties

In March of 2007 Viacom filed suit against Google and its subsidiary Youtube alleging that they were “deliberately building a business on a library of copyrighted video clips without permission”(1).

Issue

On the one hand, from a copyright holder’s perspective, the harm caused by this is that their right of exclusive distribution has been usurped, resulting in the loss of advertising revenue and direct sales. On the other hand, the websites that host such infringing material argue that, by such videos being available on their website, the copyright holders are getting free advertising for their products.

The most important aspect of this problem is that, in many instances the websites will be able to avoid liability for any infringing content by fitting into the “safe harbour” provisions of legislation such as the DMCA, or Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive in Europe. Essentially these provisions absolve such a website from liability if they remove infringing content as soon as they are informed of its presence by a copyright holder. The rationale behind such an exception to the copyright rules is that these websites are not in a position to monitor every single video that is uploaded. Not all copyright holders are satisfied with this, because it means that the responsibility for monitoring such activity is left to them. However, the resources of conglomerate corporations that hold copyrights, such as Disney, are so vast that this may actually be the fairest apportionment of responsibility. Despite this, companies such as Google are responding to the problem of copyright infringement using technology, such as the new “Claim Your Content” tools promised by Google.

Outcome

Presently the case is at a standstill, with the most recent ruling compelling Google to disclose information about its users’ viewing habits to Viacom(2).

Conclusion

Youtube has the unique quality of being both good for society at large and for copyright holders, which may lead to future court decisions being decided in Youtube’s favour.

Footnotes

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/technology/01google.html?_r=1&ex=1182398400&en=c43f48cc80b60663&ei=5070&oref=slogin
(2) http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us

Sources

1. "Viacom vs. YouTube: Beyond Privacy"
Catherine Holohan, BusinessWeek, 3/7/2008
(LINK)
2. "Google, Viacom and YouTube: What's Holding Up a Settlement"
Victoria Pynchon, Settle It Now Negotiation Blog, 07/05/2008
(LINK)
3. "Viacom v. YouTube: the Future of Online Video Sharing and Copyrights"
Martha L. Arias, IBLS, 4/6/2007
(LINK)
4. "Google cites Safe Harbor, fair use in Viacom v. YouTube defense"
Eric Bangeman, Ars Technica, 1/5/2007
(LINK)
5. "Viacom v. YouTube The real issue is a consumer rebellion, not intellectual property"
Paul Kedrosky, Wall Street Journal, 15/3/2007
(LINK)
6. "Viacom v. YouTube"
Lessig Blog, 13/3/2007
(LINK)
7. "Viacom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against YouTube and
Google Over Unauthorized Use Of The Company's Shows"
FindLaw, 13/3/2007
(LINK)
8. Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al
Justia, Relevant Documents
(LINK)