Viacom Vs YouTube

Technology seems to have found its place in the courtrooms also, these days. Viacom, an American global mass media company, sued YouTube, a video-sharing site owned by Google on the basis that YouTube had indulged in rampant intentional copyright infringement of videos that were originally owned by Viacom. This suit was for a mind-boggling $1 billion.

YouTube, being popular among the masses, gets 800 million users a month and roughly 60 hours of new videos are uploaded to the site every minute. Viacom filed a complaint against YouTube on March 13, 2007, alleging that the later had uploaded the copyrighted material owned by Viacom. Over 150,000 clips of Viacom were viewed more than 1.5 billion times on YouTube including popular shows like South Park, without the permission of Viacom. The allegation included that YouTube did this to earn more revenue through their advertisements and traffic incurred on their website. The English Premier League, The Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization, and the Scottish Premier League, later on, were merged in the suit as the other complainants.

In July 2008, during the pre-trial phase, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling came in favor of Viacom, stating that details of all the users of YouTube had to be tracked by them. There was an uproar over this ruling that the users were now exposed and their privacy was infringed upon. However, Judge Louis Stanton was of the opinion that YouTube is not a ‘video tape service provider’ as provided in the Video Privacy Protection Act 1988 so the data of the users are not protected under this Act. However, later, Google agreed to hand over the data of the users to Viacom and the other complainants, but only after making it anonymous. Although, the setback was that the data of the employees of both the parties, were handed over, without any anonymity.

Viacom argued that both YouTube and its owner Google knew about the infringement but they did not do anything about it. Google and YouTube retaliated back saying that they were entitled to ‘safe harbor’ protection under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) since they had insufficient notice of the alleged offenses. This defense will not be available to someone who derived a financial benefit from copyrighted material if he had the right and ability to control it.

Under the Act, Web hosting companies are not required to keep track of every file downloaded by their users. The DMCA is flawed since it does not cover YouTube. YouTube claimed that they did not know about the infringement and that they do not keep a check on the videos uploaded. This is a completely flawed argument since YouTube removes videos that are reported as spam, if they have pornographic content or if the original owner restricted permission for the public at large.

On June 23rd 2010, Judge Stanton decided that “When YouTube was given notices, it removed the material. It is thus protected from liability” under a provision in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). He further stated that while there was an occasion in 2007 when Viacom sent YouTube a single takedown notice for 100,000 videos and the later took them down by the next day.

While YouTube clearly emerged victorious in this case, this decision followed established judicial precedents that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.

Viacom has said that it plans to appeal against this decision. Maybe then the DMCA will be interpreted in a more liberal manner. You can be sure, that all the online service providers would be watching this case, whenever the appeal happens.

 

About the Author: Ms. Madhuri Iyer, Trade Mark Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at Madhuri@khuranaandkhurana.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six + ten =

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010