Viacom v. YouTube

"Entertainment giant Viacom, home to cable television networks such as MTV and Comedy Central, has taken its ongoing battle with Google's YouTube to federal court, suing the video Web site over what it calls "brazen" copyright violations.

Viacom, which is asking for $1 billion in damages, alleges that YouTube does little or nothing to prevent users from posting copyrighted videos on its site, largely because such popular videos -- including clips from Comedy Central's "South Park" and "The Colbert Report" and Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob SquarePants" -- help drive viewers to the ads that appear on YouTube."

From the Washington Post


Viacom claims that YouTube (Google) has been actively allowing copyrighted material to be posted online. YouTube states in its Terms of Use page that the user is responsible for making sure that they own the rights to the file that they are uploading. YouTube regularly deletes videos that are deemed spam, pornographic, or hate videos, but it does not delete videos that are copyrighted even though they must know that their site does contain illegal material which violates the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Viacom's lawsuit is based on the fact that YouTube does not take preventive measures to protect copyright owners, but instead forces the copyright holders to take initiative and file a DMCA notice with YouTube in order to have their material removed from the site.

A copyright holder must provide all of the following in order to get their copyrighted content removed:

"D. In particular, if you are a copyright owner or an agent thereof and believe that any User Submission or other content infringes upon your copyrights, you may submit a notification pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") by providing our Copyright Agent with the following information in writing (see 17 U.S.C 512(c)(3) for further detail):

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed;

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material;

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail;

(v) A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

(Source: YouTube Terms of Use)

Viacom makes the point that YouTube is purposely leaving copyrighted material on their site in order to draw users into their site so that they can make money on the advertising. While this may be true, just before Viacom filed lawsuit against YouTube they partnered with a new video sharing site called Joost, which claims to protect copyrighted material more strictly then other sites. (As well as show full episodes of Viacom owned programs online, and legally). It seems that Viacom is trying to take down YouTube. And by legally having the rights to show TV shows from networks like Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon they may have a shot.

New round of RIAA settlements, aimed at college campuses

A recording industry group that has been offering settlements to college students suspected of sharing music online says more than a quarter of the alleged music pirates have accepted the offer."

The offer by the RIAA is a pre-litigation settlement, meaning that no subpoenas have been issued, and no lawsuit filed. The settlements typically are $750 per song allegedly downloaded by the student. A website was provided with the letter that was sent to the students, allowing them to pay their settlements online with a credit card. The average settlements ranged from $3000-$5000. 405 students from 23 different college campuses were issued letters, and the RIAA itself reported that 116 took the settlement. That leaves 71% of those issued that did not take the settlement. That being said the RIAA still believes their campaign has been a success so far. More letters can be expected next month.

"A student who received a pre-litigation letter told Ars that he refused to engage their offer because they offer zero proof of what is alleged. "It's like receiving blackmail. 'We know what you did, pay us' is the message, but they don't really know me or what I have done," he wrote. The student wishes to remain anonymous.

He knows that students who ignore the pre-litigation letters are just asking the RIAA to pursue them more, but he hopes that when the RIAA is actually faced with having to produce evidence that they'll simply come up short. The current approach by the RIAA is to simply tell students that each song shared is a $750 violation, so one's fine is often calculated based on the number of songs the RIAA says that they've shared. Yet the RIAA offers no proof of their claims, while sometimes trying to make students feel like they're getting a deal.

(By: Ken Fisher from Ars Technica)

The RIAA is trying to scare college students into paying a fine while they do not provide any evidence of any violation. They mentioned as well that if they were to pay up no record of the lawsuit would appear on the students records in the future. It is astounding that as many as 116 people would admit to copyright infringement without any evidence that has been proven reasonable in a court of them doing so. As mentioned in Ken Fisher's article, the RIAA could 'come up short' and not be able to prove anything.

With over 60 million estimated users of peer-to-peer software in the United States, firing random lawsuits at the public does not seem to have a deterrent affect. By suing college students I believe that they feel they cannot lose because more then half of college students admit to using such software, and also they have a lot at stake. No one wants to have the burden of a lawsuit on their record when applying for jobs fresh out of college. The RIAA knows this, and is taking advantage of it.


Also I would like to comment on the wording used by the RIAA in their own report of the settlements.

"Continuing its efforts to address the extensive music theft that persists on college campuses, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of the major record companies, today sent a second wave of 405 pre-litigation settlement letters to 23 universities."

(Taken from http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/032107.asp)

The RIAA continues to use the word theft in their reports. Theft entails that someones property has been taken from them. Theft is also a criminal offense. The issue here is copyright infringement, which does not involve property being taken but copied. Copyright infringement is also not a crime in America, it is a matter for the civil court system.