This is a copy of the lawsuit Universal filed against MySpace on November 17, 2006, in the United States District Court of Central California.  In the suit, Universal claims that MySpace is guilty of copyright infringement.  Universal claims that the songs and music videos shown on MySpace are done so illegally and without permission from copyright holders.  Universal uses Jay-Z as an example in their case against MySpace, saying that songs from his new CD, "Kingdom Come", are available on MySpace even though, at the time the suit was filed, the record had not been released.  Universal says that MySpace is well aware of the copyright laws that it is breaking and continues to support the "user-stolen"content distributed on the site.  They also say that MySpace knows that they don't have a liscense from the copyright holders of the songs and videos it distributes.  The proof, says Universal, lies in the agreement each MySpace user makes with the site that gives MySpace control over what can be done with the content.   Universal says that MySpace knows that these are not the real copyright holders, and yet continues to show infringing content without permission.

This case is extremely relevant to the YouTube copyright discussion.  First off, it could convince MySpace and other similar sites to follow YouTube's lead and strike revenue sharing deals with major studios.  The YouTube business model would then be seen as a blue print for similar companies, and this in turn would help shield YouTube and other sites from future lawsuits.  However, this case could end up hurting YouTube.  Universal claims that since MySpace edits and posts much of the content on the site, they are knowingly infringing upon the copyrights of the videos and songs available on their site.  Although YouTube's users do much of the posting and editing, YouTube itself still edits user content.  If the courts buy Universal's arguments, YouTube could be in grave danger of future lawsuits.

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.