This book presents a guide to the resource acquisition, legal, and financial necessities of producing an independent film.  Every aspect of the planning and execution of the business side of filmmaking is discussed, including hypothetical situations based on the personal experience of the entertainment lawyers who co-authorized the book.  The book introduces the roles of producer and lawyer, then outlines the film development process through deal making, financing, hiring, licensing and distribution.

As is pertains to my project, this book provides valuable insight into the warranted concern that filmmakers have had with the 21st century dispute over Internet distribution rights.  In the case of Viacom v. Youtube, the exclusive rights per the 1976 Copyright Act for copyright owners to reproduce their works became the basis for allegations against YouTube for a count of direct copyright infringement.  The authors of this book advise filmmakers to negotiate with distributors on the basis that they "cannon distribute on the Net until there is adequate 'border protection' to prevent access outside licensed territories" (132).

Erickson, Gunnar, Harris Tulchin, Mark Halloran, and J. Gunnar Erickson. The Independent Film Producer's Survival Guide: A Business and Legal Sourcebook . New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 2005

The rights to intellectual property and the revenue thereof can make or break an entrepreneurial business.  This book covers the gambit of trade secrets that tech-savvy entrepreneurs may need to protect intellectual property in the dynamic arena of copyright law, licensing, patenting, and trademark acquisition.  The book makes examples of the infringement issues faced by international business icons such as Microsoft and Amazon.com.

As it pertains to my project, the book also goes over the provisions for statutory versus actual damages in the 1976 Copyright Act (115).  These provisions are under review in the Viacom v. YouTube case.

Guide, Gilbert. The Entrepreneur's Guide to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets & Licensing . New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 2004

As Alfred Yen, professor of law at the Boston College Law School, states in his introduction, this article "studies the construction of third party copyright liability in light of the recent Supreme Court case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.” The article is broken up into five sections: the first describes the doctrines that governed third party liability before Grokster, the second uses “fault and strict liability to expose the theoretical and practical tradeoffs implicit I these differing constructions, the third analyzes the case itself, the fourth describes the implications of the decision and “sets forth the general contours of an improved, post-Grokster­ construction of third party copyright liability, and the fifth gives some thought to the future of this subject matter.

The Grokster case is the latest in a series of cases where an internet service provider has been prosecuted for the actions of its users. Yet, even with this new decision in the books, little progress has been made to determine who is really the most responsible for infringement or how to hold them adequately responsible. Yen writes that “third part copyright liability benefits society by encouraging individuals to stop others from infringing, but those benefits come at a price… third party copyright liability suppresses non-infringing as well as infringing behavior.” Overall, this paradox illustrates the biggest deficit of internet copyright law: the inability to find the balance between, in Yen’s words, “desirable and undesirable consequences” of new technology. At this point in time, there seems to be no obvious strategy for regulating the internet without stifling future innovation and creation.

This article points out that although Grokster “gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to straighten out the law of third party copyright liability” little to no progress was actually made in interpreting pre-Grokster doctrines of third party copyright liability. Instead of “choosing between” existing “differing interpretations” of the law, Yen writes that the court “adopted a dormant theory of third party copyright liability, inducement.” Overall, Yen’s article shows that “inducement give courts a new tool for holding culpable defendants liable which reducing the risk of undesirable side effects.” Yen describes the Grokster decision as being “not a landmark, so much as a milestone, ratifying a continuing détente between those who build on the Internet and those in a position to regulate the builders.” This decision has also turned the focus of internet gate keeping to controlling software and PC uses ability to run that software rather than the ability to control the entire network.

Whether or not one agrees with the merit of the new inducement doctrine, this article is a comprehensive look at an area of copyright law that is important and continuing to quickly evolve. The story of these laws will continue to change drastically in the years to come, but this is a useful, informative and through-provoking look at the situation thus far.

This document was posted on Mark Cuban's website blogmaverick.com.  Cuban claims that this is the actual filing of the case Tur v. YouTube, and judging from the legal jargon and very deliberate format, there seems to be little reason to deny that this is the actual filing.

The document states that on December 4, 2006, the case Robert Tur v. YouTube will be heard in United States District Court of Central California.  The introduction states that "there can be no doubt that serious and repetitive infringements of Tur's copyrighted works are displayed...on YouTube on a daily basis."  It also states that YouTube's main defense is the Safe Harbor Act in the DMCA, which they say protects them because they immediately remove copyrighted content at the owner's request.  The summary of Tur's claim states that YouTube does not qualify for the Safe Harbor provision because they make money "in the form of banner advertising directly attributable to the infringing video clips."  The article then goes on to list the details of the case, which basically state that five clips copyrighted by Tur are being shown on YouTube illegally. It also states that Tur is seeking roughly $150 million in damages, or $150,000 for each illegal viewing of his clips.

The decision in this case will be absolutely essential to the future of YouTube as a legitimate business.  While YouTube has helped solve many of their copyright issues with big name studios through recent revenue sharing agreements, a decision favoring Tur in this case would open the door to more lawsuits from small copyright owners.  This case will also test the legitimacy of YouTube's safe harbor defense.  Without the safe harbor provision, YouTube is an illegal company.  If this court's decision and later decisions eventually change the validity of that provision, or convinve Congress to do so, YouTube may be completely out of luck.  However, a win in this case would put YouTube on solid legal footing behind this Safe Harbor Defense.

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.  He writes that content owners may only be biding their time until the Google acquisition of YouTube is finalized.  At that point, a number of lawsuits may be filed against YouTube by copyright holders. 

Google launched its online video service this January.  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.  However, Google has "abandoned its attempts to catch YouTube", and instead just purchased the company for a cool $1.65 billion.  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 "had been subsisting on $11.5 million in venture capital".  Google itself has $10.4 billion- in cash.  Google itself has acknowledged the fact that it could face more copyright lawsuits because of YouTube.

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.  The number was later confirmed to be $200 million by Google representatives.  Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, continues to remain confident amidst the fears of lawsuits.  He said that YouTube has "been on this path" referring to copyright issues, and that together they could solve these issues "more quickly". 

Investors also seem to be unfazed by copyright concerns over YouTube.  Liedtke points to the fact that Google has a lot of experience in copyright cases and has yet to been dealt a serious blow.  Google's stock has risen nearly 15% since the purchase of YouTube. 

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  He also describes the "Bell lobbyists" and how their efforts set the foundation for YouTube's seemingly successful business model. 

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.  Wu describes the clash of these two entities as "Frazier meeting Foreman", saying that the unstoppable force that was the Hollywood lobbying team finally met an immovable object in the Bell lobbyists.  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.  The Bell lobbyists insisted that this was ludacris and fought against Hollywood's lobbyists with all their political might.  A stalemate insued, so a compromise was reached.  Wu writes that this compromise would later become Title II of the DMCA, which states that companies are protected by a "notice and takedown" system.  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.  Therefore, YouTube only needs to quickly takedown any material after notified to avoid legal issues. 

Wu does mention that this provision is not 100% "air-tight" 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.  Wu then describes the difference between Napster and YouTube, saying that if the Internet were a red-light district, Napster would be the "pimp" and YouTube the "hotel".  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 "provides the space for people to do things, legal or not".

Amanda Bronstad in this article writes about the differences between the copyright infringement cases that ultimately doomed music file sharing sites like Napster and Grokster and the current batch of cases involving video sharing sites like YouTube.  On one side of the argument, video sharing sites say that a major percentage of their content is perfectly legitimate and legal.  Also, these sites, especially YouTube, point out that they remove content considered to be copyright infringing immediately after they are notified by the copyright holder.  This did not happen with music file sharing sites. However, lawyers for Hollywood's major studios say that their case is bolstered by the fact that they now have a precedent in MGM v. Grokster.  They argue that web sites know they make money off of this infringing material, and therefore are liable for induced infringement.  They also say that video sharing sites may be considered direct infringers because of the role these sites take in editing user content.

Bronstad also notes that while the recent agreements between YouTube and major studios such as Universal, Warner, and CBS does help legitimize the site, the agreements aren't necessarily "suit proof".  She says that many experts in the field see a major gray area that could be exploited by an ambitious company or law firm.  She says that the debate will ultimately come down to the DMCA's "safe harbor provision", and whether or not these video sites have put in place and enforced rules to protect themselves from future legal issues.  She says that the strongest safe harbor these companies have is the ability to remove copyright infringing material from their sites.  If sites continue to consistently remove copyright infringing content, as YouTube has done over the last few months, then these companies will have a strong legal foundation for their business models.