http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/copyright+google+youtube PennTags Feed http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/35497 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/35497 <p>This is the case, long awaited, between Viacom and YouTube.&nbsp; In this case, Viacom makes a number of requests compelling YouTube to release information as well as media and content.&nbsp; While there are eight motions, they are not all granted; five are denied.&nbsp; This is interesting, as we must note the reasoning behind Judge Louis L. Stranton&rsquo;s decisions on July 1, 2008.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In favor of YouTube, the motion to compel production of search code is denied, and the cross motion for a protective order of the source code is granted.&nbsp; This is based on the reasoning that such a disclosure would expose a trade secret (that costs thousands of man hours) and that there is no evidence that such a tool could even filter out infringing videos.&nbsp; The motion to compel production of the source code for the Video ID program is also denied on the grounds that it is also a trade secret and Viacom doesn&rsquo;t make a significant showing of need.&nbsp; Also, YouTube claims that they could figure it out by using it.&nbsp; Judge Stranton does grant the motion to compel production of all removed videos.&nbsp; Viacom claims that access to all of these files is necessary to identify any infringing videos (but burden of such a task lies on Viacom).&nbsp;&nbsp; It is also granted that YouTube produce all data from Logging databases concerning each time a video is viewed on the website or on a third-party website.&nbsp; This passes because of the insufficiency of an IP address to identify personal information.&nbsp; The motion to compel production of all those data fields which defendants have agreed to produce for works-in-suit, for all videos that have been posted to the YouTube website is denied because &ldquo;No sufficiently compelling need is shown to justify the analysis of &ldquo;millions of pieces of information&rdquo; sought<br />by this request.&rdquo;&nbsp; He also denies the motion to compel production of the schema for Google Advertising databases, but grants for the schema regarding the Google Video Content database.&nbsp; This is because the plaintiffs have already been promised the only relevant data in the database, they do not need Google&rsquo;s confidential map of how it runs its advertising business.&nbsp; Viacom is also denied the ability to access all private videos, except the data related to these videos that is not the actual content. &nbsp;<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;This is essentially the main case that I will use as an example in my paper in determining whether or not YouTube&rsquo;s business violates copyright laws.&nbsp; I hope to explore my other sources as well to see if there are any rulings that I do not agree with.&nbsp; It is important to note that the Judge&rsquo;s decision is not to shut down YouTube, but to assure that any infringement is addressed, while maintaining YouTube&rsquo;s ability to function as a unique video sharing network.</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/27917 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/27917 <p>Intellectual property is taking on new forms in the digital media market. Consumers are exploring their creative license through the use of multimedia service providers in unprecidented ways. This surge of consumer digital media use is also bringing to a head new conflicts between intellectual property rights Creative Commons, and Digital Rights Management. This book explores this phenomenon and the various ways in which major digital media service providers are being effected by this rapidly changing market environment. Overviews of the business performance, legal goings on, and multimedia services of such industry icons as Google, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony BMG, Napster and more are discussed.</p><p>In reference to my project, the book looks at precident intellectual property cases and gives insights into how the concepts within the 1976 Copyright Act are applicable to the cases. The author also notes that Google has aside $200 million in escrow to deal with inevitable litigation, lists the various number of litigations involving YouTube, and notes that these cases will set important precedents for future review of copyright law as it pertains to Internet videos (253).</p><p>Rimmer, Matthew. <u>Digital Copyright and the Consumer Revolution: Hands Off My Ipod</u>. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12383 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12383 <p>This article from the New York Times describes in detail the legal issues that Google deals with on a regular basis. Katie Hafner, who wrote the article, notes that any company that is large, successful, and has deep pockets, all qualities of the search engine giant, will attract lawsuits. Yet she says that Google &quot;invites&quot; lawsuits because of the company's &quot;rush to create innovative new services. Professor Jonathan Zittrain of Oxford University is quoted in this article as saying that Google's strategy seems to be &quot;just do it, and consult the lawyers as you go&quot;. He sees this as an offshoot of the late 90's internet boom culture which promoted new ideas and technology at the expense of possible legal trouble. </p><p>With Google's recent purchase of YouTube, many believe that the company is &quot;exposing itself to a new spate of lawsuits&quot;. Hafner points out the fact that much of the content on YouTube is copyrighted material just copied and illegally posted, as well as the lawsuit filed against YouTube by Robert Tur, which Google will now have to deal with. However, Google has plenty of experience in copyright fights, and seems ready for the challenge.</p><p>Hafner spends the rest of the article detailing the reason's behind Google's aggressive policies toward fighting litigation and some of the most well known copyright and trademark cases involving YouTube. She first notes that Google now has a team of over 100 lawyers, stationed both overseas and in the United States, many of which are experts on intellectual property law. This team works tirelessly to fight nearly every single lawsuit filed against Google. They do this because, one, Google wants to set a good legal foundation for itself, and winning cases certainly does this. Also, any lawsuit that gets to the pre-trial fact finding phase, writes Hafner, would &quot;pose the danger of revealing too much about Google's propriety technology&quot;</p><p>The rest of the article deals with Hafner describing the Geico case against Google, in which the courts ruled in Google's favor, and the lawsuits brought up by the French and Belgian press. The Belgian case is extremely relevant to copyright law, with Google claiming that headlines are not copyrightable, while the Belgian media thinks otherwise. A Belgian court ruled in favor of the media outlet in September, yet it remains to be seen whether or not this ruling will have an effect on Google in the United States.</p><p>This article is important in the YouTube discussion because it points out one of Google's great advantages when dealing with copyright issues- Google has tons of experience in this area.&nbsp; Google's executives and lawyers both know what to expect in the upcoming lawsuits, and they firmly believe that they have a solid defense.&nbsp; Google would not have purchased YouTube if they had not been confident in the company's legality.&nbsp;</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12377 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12377 <p>Michael Liedtke writes in this article about the recent lawsuit brought against Google involving Google's online video service and whether or not the lawsuit is a sign of more copyright issues to come for Google's newest addition, YouTube.&nbsp; He writes that content owners may only be biding their time until the Google acquisition of YouTube is finalized.&nbsp; At that point, a number of lawsuits may be filed against YouTube by copyright holders.&nbsp; </p><p>Google launched its online video service this January.&nbsp; Since then, Liedtke writes, they have been desperately trying to catch up to YouTube, created a year earlier by two Pay Pal employees in California.&nbsp; However, Google has &quot;abandoned its attempts to catch YouTube&quot;, and instead just purchased the company for a cool $1.65 billion.&nbsp; The issue with the acquisition, Liedtke explains, is that copyright holders can now sue YouTube with expectations of a large payout, now that they are backed by the immense capital possessed by Google. Liedtke notes that before the deal with Google, YouTube &quot;had been subsisting on $11.5 million in venture capital&quot;.&nbsp; Google itself has $10.4 billion- in cash.&nbsp; Google itself has acknowledged the fact that it could face more copyright lawsuits because of YouTube.</p><p>Liedtke also talks about the widely circulated internet rumor which said that Google had set aside $500 million in case copyright issues came up after the purchase of YouTube.&nbsp; The number was later confirmed to be $200 million by Google representatives.&nbsp; Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, continues to remain confident amidst the fears of lawsuits.&nbsp; He said that YouTube has &quot;been on this path&quot; referring to copyright issues, and that together they could solve these issues &quot;more quickly&quot;.&nbsp; </p><p>Investors also seem to be unfazed by copyright concerns over YouTube.&nbsp; Liedtke points to the fact that Google has a lot of experience in copyright cases and has yet to been dealt a serious blow.&nbsp; Google's stock has risen nearly 15% since the purchase of YouTube.&nbsp;</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12327 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12327 <p>Tim Wu in this Slate article describes in detail the differences between YouTube and Napster and why he believes that YouTube has very solid legal footing. Wu simply says the YouTube has a safe harbor provision in the DMCA protecting them, while&nbsp; He also describes the &quot;Bell lobbyists&quot; and how their efforts set the foundation for YouTube's seemingly successful business model.&nbsp;</p><p> The Bell lobbyists, Wu writes, fought one of the greatest copyright struggles in history when it took on Hollywood over the liability of internet companies for copyright infringement.&nbsp; Wu describes the clash of these two entities as &quot;Frazier meeting Foreman&quot;, saying that the unstoppable force that was the Hollywood lobbying team finally met an immovable object in the Bell lobbyists.&nbsp; Hollywood, on one side, wanted internet sites to be responsible for all content on their site, even if they were unaware of the infringing content.&nbsp; The Bell lobbyists insisted that this was ludacris and fought against Hollywood's lobbyists with all their political might.&nbsp; A stalemate insued, so a compromise was reached.&nbsp; Wu writes that this compromise would later become Title II of the DMCA, which states that companies are protected by a &quot;notice and takedown&quot; system.&nbsp; This means that all a site has to do to comply with copyright laws is take down infringing material at the request of the copyright holders.&nbsp; Therefore, YouTube only needs to quickly takedown any material after notified to avoid legal issues.&nbsp; </p><p>Wu does mention that this provision is not 100% &quot;air-tight&quot; noting that if YouTube knows there is infringing material on its site and fails to act, it may be liable in court for the infringement.&nbsp; Wu then describes the difference between Napster and YouTube, saying that if the Internet were a red-light district, Napster would be the &quot;pimp&quot; and YouTube the &quot;hotel&quot;.&nbsp; He says that while Napster, like a pimp, is a means of getting illegal things and nothing else, YouTube is like the hotel in that they only &quot;provides the space for people to do things, legal or not&quot;.<br /></p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/project/12256 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/project/12256