Viacom Uploaded Videos to Youtube Then Sued Youtube

U.S. District Court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
Courtroom	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Total case name	Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
Decided	June 23, 2010
Citation(s)	No. 07 Civ. 2103, 2010 WL 2532404 (S.D.N.Y 2010)
Holding
Google'south movement for summary judgement was granted on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act'southward "safe harbor" provisions shielded Google from Viacom's copyright infringement claims, just was subsequently overturned in part, and the case remains awaiting.
Court membership
Approximate(s) sitting	Louis L. Stanton
Keywords
Copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Safety Harbor

Viacom International, Inc. five. YouTube, Inc. , No. 07 Civ. 2103, is a U.S. District Court for the Southern Commune of New York case in which Viacom sued YouTube, a video-sharing site owned by Google, alleging that YouTube had engaged in "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement by assuasive users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission.^[1] A motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal was filed by Google and was granted in 2010 on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions shielded Google from Viacom'south copyright infringement claims.^[2] In 2012, on entreatment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Excursion, it was overturned in part. On Apr eighteen, 2013, District Guess Stanton again granted summary judgment in favor of accused YouTube.^[3] An appeal was begun, but the parties settled in March 2014.^[4]

Background [edit]

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a Us $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging that the site had engaged in "brazen" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view copyrighted textile owned by Viacom.^[5] The complaint stated that over 150,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's programming, such as SpongeBob SquarePants, had been fabricated available on YouTube, and that these clips had collectively been viewed 1.five billion times.^[5]

Viacom claimed that YouTube had infringed on its copyrights by performing, displaying, and reproducing Viacom's copyrighted works. Furthermore, the complaint contended that the defendants "appoint in, promote and induce" the infringement, and that they had deliberately congenital up a library of infringing works in order to increase the site'southward traffic (and advertisement revenue).^[v] In full, Viacom claimed iii counts of directly infringement, and three counts of indirect infringement, specifically inducement, contributory infringement and vicarious infringement.^{[half dozen]}

Viacom did not seek damages for whatsoever actions after Google put its Content ID filtering organization in identify in early on 2008.^[vii] The lawsuit was later merged with like complaints being pursued by the English language Premier League and other copyright holders.^[8]

District Court proceedings [edit]

In July 2008, during the pre-trial discovery stage, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to manus over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who had e'er watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the viewing habits of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and usernames. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights,"^[9] and privacy advocates such equally Simon Davies, who stated that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened.^[x] Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totaling effectually 12 terabytes of information.^[eleven] Judge Stanton held that because YouTube is non a "videotape service provider" as defined in the Video Privacy Protection Act, its users' data was not protected under the human action. Nonetheless, Judge Stanton rejected Viacom's asking that YouTube hand over the source code of its search engine, saying that information technology was a "merchandise secret". As a result of the information handover, many users began posting videos nether the group proper noun "Viacom Sucks!", often containing large amounts of profanity.^[10]

Even so, in July 2008, Google and Viacom agreed that Google could anonymize all the data earlier giving it to Viacom.^[12] The privacy bargain also applied to other litigants including the English Premier League, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization and the Scottish Premier League.^[13] Nevertheless, the deal exempted employees of both the defendants and the plaintiffs, whose de-anonymized data was provided separately.

The employee data was subsequently used in filings past both sides. Viacom cited internal due east-mails sent amongst YouTube's founders discussing how to bargain with clips uploaded to YouTube that were plain the holding of major media conglomerates. Google stated that Viacom itself had "hired no fewer than eighteen dissimilar marketing agencies to upload its content to the site".^[14] Google argued that since Viacom and its lawyers were "unable to recognize that dozens of the clips alleged as infringements in this instance were uploaded to YouTube with Viacom's limited authority, "it was unreasonable to await Google'due south employees to know which videos were uploaded without permission."^[15]

Google'southward chief counsel afterward publicly elaborated on the allegations:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, fifty-fifty while publicly complaining most its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them wait stolen or leaked. Information technology opened YouTube accounts using phony electronic mail addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its ain shows, every bit a thing of visitor policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives equally high upwards as the president of Comedy Cardinal and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube. Viacom'southward efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked then well that even its ain employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on endless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that information technology had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

—Zahavah Levine, Chief Counsel, YouTube, ^[16]

2010 District Courtroom ruling [edit]

On June 23, 2010, Judge Stanton granted Google's motility for summary judgment, holding that Google was protected past provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, nevertheless testify of intentional copyright infringement.^{[2] [8]} The judge held that while the company undeniably had general knowledge that some copyrighted textile had been uploaded by users, it did non know which clips had been uploaded with permission and which had not.^[7] He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively constabulary every uploaded video "would contravene the construction and operation of the D.Grand.C.A."^[7] As evidence that the notification authorities specified by the DMCA was effective, Stanton noted that YouTube had successfully addressed a mass have-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007. The judge rejected Viacom'due south comparisons betwixt YouTube and other Internet-based, media-sharing companies, such as Grokster, that had previously been found guilty of indirect copyright infringement.^[7] The ruling also reversed the courtroom order issued in July 2008.

Viacom announced its intention to entreatment the ruling.^[8]

2012 Appellate Courtroom ruling [edit]

The entreatment was argued before the The states Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit in August 2011, and the determination was issued on April five, 2012.^[17] Amid other things, Viacom and the other plaintiffs focused on internal east-mails amidst YouTube employees who were enlightened of infringement, including specific instances, which the district court said could be considered knowledge that would disqualify YouTube from condom harbor protection.^{[18] [19] [20]}

Judges Cabranes and Livingston reversed Judge Stanton'due south grant of summary judgment,^[21] holding that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website"^[22] and, contrary to the Ninth Circuit'due south dismissal of the Veoh example (UMG v. Shelter Partners), that the right and ability to control infringing activity need not require knowledge of specific infringements.^[17] Thus, the instance was again eligible for a jury trial.^[18]

Withal, the court upheld one aspect of Stanton's ruling. The plaintiffs had argued that four of YouTube's software functions relating to user uploads butterfingers the service from prophylactic harbor protection, but the appeals court agreed with the lower courtroom in that 3 of the functions—transcoding, playback, and related-video thumbnails^[eighteen]— were within the scope of safe harbor.^[17] The fourth function, syndication,^[xviii] was remanded for further fact-finding.^{[17] [23]}

2013 District Courtroom ruling [edit]

On April 18, 2013, Judge Stanton issued another club granting summary judgment in favor of YouTube.^[iii] Post-obit the remand from the Second Circuit court of appeals, Stanton ruled on iv issues in his decision:

(A) Whether YouTube had noesis or sensation of any specific infringements (B) Whether YouTube willfully blinded itself (C) Whether YouTube had the "correct and power to control" infringing activity and (D) Whether any clips were syndicated

Judge Stanton ruled in favor of YouTube on all iv bug finding that YouTube had no bodily noesis of any specific instance of infringement of Viacom's works, and therefore could not have "willfully blinded itself". He also ruled that YouTube did not take the "right and power to control" infringing activity considering "there is no bear witness that YouTube induced its users to submit infringing videos, provided users with detailed instructions nigh what content to upload or edited their content, prescreened submissions for quality, steered users to infringing videos, or otherwise interacted with infringing users to a bespeak where information technology might be said to have participated in their activity."^[3] This ruling came despite statements made by YouTube employees that "we should grow equally aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, nonetheless evil. the site is out of control with copyrighted cloth if we remove the obviously copyright infringing stuff site traffic would driblet to mayhap 20% steal it!"^[24] All quotations were argued to be taken out of context. The ruling was entered as concluding on April 29, 2013.^[iv]

An entreatment was begun, merely the week earlier the parties were to appear in the second U.Southward. Circuit Court of Appeals, a settlement was appear in March 2014, and it was reported that no money changed easily.^[25]

Come across likewise [edit]

• Google litigation

References [edit]

1. ^ "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Viacom against Google". Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
2. ^ ^{a b} "Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment that Accused YouTube Qualifies for Protection of 17 U. Southward. C. § 512 (c) Confronting all of Plaintiffs' Claims for Direct and Secondary Copyright Infringement". Docket Alert, Inc. Retrieved May nine, 2013.
3. ^ ^{a b c} "Granting Defendant YouTube's Renewed Motility for Summary Judgment; Entering Sentence that Defendants are Protected by the Safe-Harbor Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.South.C. § 512(c) from all of Plaintiffs Copyright Infringement Claims". Docket Alarm, Inc. April 18, 2013. Retrieved May nine, 2013.
4. ^ ^{a b} "Docket Information for Viacom v. YouTube". Retrieved May 9, 2013.
5. ^ ^{a b c} [1] Text of complaint
6. ^ VerSteeg, Russ. Viacom v. YouTube: Preliminary Observations, North Carolina Periodical of Police force and Technology, Volume ix, Issue 1, Fall 2007
7. ^ ^{a b c d} Helft, Miguel (June 23, 2010). "Estimate Sides With Google in Viacom Video Accommodate". The New York Times.
8. ^ ^{a b c} Lefkow, Chris (June 23, 2010). "United states judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube". AFP. Archived from the original on June 26, 2010. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
9. ^ "Estimate orders Google to requite YouTube user data to Viacom". Agence France-Presse. July 4, 2008. Archived from the original on July two, 2010.
10. ^ ^{a b} "Google must divulge YouTube Log". BBC News. July 3, 2008.
11. ^ Helft, Miguel (July 4, 2008). "Google Told to Plow Over User Information of YouTube". The New York Times.
12. ^ Sweeney, Marking (July 15, 2008). "Google and Viacom reach deal over YouTube user data". The Guardian.
13. ^ Auchard, Eric (July 15, 2008). "Lawyers in YouTube lawsuit accomplish user privacy deal". Reuters.
14. ^ Zahavah Levine (March 18, 2010). "Broadcast Yourself". The Official YouTube Blog . Retrieved Nov 22, 2010.
15. ^ Helft, Miguel (March 18, 2010). "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyright". The New York Times.
16. ^ Levine, Zahavah (March 18, 2010). "Broadcast Yourself". YouTube Official Blog . Retrieved August 22, 2013.
17. ^ ^{a b c d} "ten-3270, ten-3342 Viacom Int'fifty, Inc., Football Ass'n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc" (PDF). Apr 5, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on February sixteen, 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2011.
18. ^ ^{a b c d} Goldman, Eric (April 5, 2012). "Second Excursion Ruling in Viacom 5. YouTube Is a Bummer for Google and the UGC Community". Retrieved April 5, 2012.
19. ^ "Opening Brief for Plaintiffs-Appelants" (PDF). December three, 2010. Retrieved Apr 5, 2012.
20. ^ "Respond Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants" (PDF). April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
21. ^ Greg Sandoval (Apr v, 2012). "Viacom wins second circular of copyright battle confronting YouTube". CNet.
22. ^ Brian Stelter (April 5, 2012). "Appeals Court Revives Viacom Suit Confronting YouTube". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012.
23. ^ David Glovin; Don Jeffrey (April five, 2012). "Viacom'southward Copyright Suit Against Google's YouTube Reinstated". Bloomberg L.P.
24. ^ Black Entertainment Television, LLC, One-act Partners, Country Music Boob tube, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, Viacom International, Inc. (March 29, 2013). "Memorandum of Police force in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment". Docket Alarm, Inc. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
25. ^ Stempel, Jonathan (March eighteen, 2014). "Google, Viacom settle landmark YouTube lawsuit". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 18, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2017.

hardingliket2002.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

Share this post