DMCA/CDA

Viacom v. YouTube, Mother of All DMCA Copyright Cases (part 2 of 2-part post)

[This is part 2 of a 2-part post. To read part 1, click here]

[Update: Viacom v. Youtube was settled before the Second Circuit rendered its decision on the appeal discussed in this post]

After the events described in part 1, Kevin Kickstarter, founder of YouPostVid, meets with his lawyer, Mr. Jagger, to discuss whether YouPostVid needs to change its approach to managing copyrighted videos posted by users of the site. In preparation for this meeting Kevin has read the decisions in Viacom v. YouTube, and Mr. Jagger* has familiarized himself with YouPostVid’s compliance practices under the DMCA.

*[Note] Mr. Jagger’s name is a  play on the infamous  lawyer in Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens.

Kevin Kickstarter: Mr. Jagger, what I don’t understand is this – we comply with valid DMCA takedown notices. We take down thousands of video clips a month in response to takedown notices.

However, the DMCA also says that we can lose our  immunity if we have “actual knowledge” of infringement, or if we are “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent” — what you call “red flag” knowledge — or if we engage in “willful blindness,” a concept I don’t understand at all.… Read the full article

Viacom v. YouTube, Mother of All DMCA Copyright Cases (part 1 of 2-part post)

[This is the first of what will be a two-part post on Viacom v. YouTube]

[Update: Viacom v. Youtube was settled before the Second Circuit rendered its decision on the appeal discussed in this post]

It seems unlikely that the drafters of the DMCA — a law enacted in 1998, the same year Google was incorporated — anticipated how difficult the courts would find application of this complex, near-5,000-word statute. There may be no better case to illustrate this than Viacom’s long-running suit against YouTube (a company owned by Google). As of November 2013 briefs had been filed in the second appeal in Viacom v. YouTube, and the case is likely to be scheduled for oral argument before the Second Circuit sometime in the first few months of 2014.*

*[Note]: I have written about Viacom v. YouTube several times during its long history (the case was filed in 2007).

Read the full article

Whew, that is a mouthful.  I was a teenage werewolf?  No, I was a guest on URBusiness Network’s CHAOS Tuesday Internet Radio Show. Here’s what it means.

URBusiness Network, or “URBN,” is, in its own words, an “online radio station streaming 24/7 with business specific programing.”  This is, needless to say, not your father’s radio station. In fact, it is “radio” only by analogy. Think “entirely new business technology model made possible by increases in Internet bandwidth.” In other words, this is a relatively new industry, with minimal barriers to entry (low cost, no FCC regulation) and unlimited geographic reach. URBN is a small but serious player in this market.

One of the many Internet radio shows URBN produces is “CHAOS Tuesday,” the brainchild of Jim Johnson, founder of The Standish Group.  The Standish Group is an organization with expertise in large (and I mean very large) software projects.  … Read the full article

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a copyright holder to send a takedown notice to an online service provider that is hosting a copyright-protected work posted by a third party. But, lest the law be used to suppress lawful speech, the DMCA requires that a takedown notice contain (among other things) a “statement that the complaining party has 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 certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate.

What if someone sends a takedown notice that is authorized by the law, and does so in bad faith? The law provides that –

[a]ny person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section . . . that material or activity is infringing . . . shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer .

Read the full article