In March 2007, Viacom (Visual and Audio Communications - an American media conglomerate), sued YouTube, claiming extensive infringements of Viacom's copyrighted material. YouTube, as an online service provider, argued that it had limited liability to any damages or charges under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. The court case held focused on whether YouTube qualified to receive that protection as defined by the DMCA. In my paper, I plan to introduce the framework and business model of YouTube and then tie in Viacom lawsuit as a discussion of the amount of liability that rests on YouTube. Using the original decision from the case, in addition to arguments and opinions of various other sources, I hope to provide a more definitive answer to YouTube's liability for infringement, and in the process examine arguments for both sides.

Fred von Lohmann
Aritcle: July 10, 2006
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002802746

    This article, written by Fred von Lohmann, briefly overviews the YouTube company and its legal liability as an online host of material, specifically videos.  Lohmann attempts to explore how YouTube stands under protection by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) from copyright infringement cases.  He outlines and gives examples of how YouTube could be violating copyright laws but also explains why its existence might be a protected under fair use.  YouTube could be responsible for countless charges, as it hosts infringing copyrighted and unlicensed material, but as an online-service provider, it is protected by the DMCA from the habits of users.
    The author then goes on to explain the terms under which online hosts are protected from damage costs, if their users do infringe copyright laws.  These services must be able to notify users and remove from the system any material claimed to be of copyright infringement by an owner.  YouTube must also terminate users deemed to be repeat infringers.  Additionally, protection will be removed if YouTube is aware of any associated piracy or illegal activity.  Finally, if there are any revenue-generating ads closely tied to infringing activity, protection would be lifted.
    This poses a problem, as much revenue is generated for YouTube by ads.  As a result, ads can only be placed on search result pages and not those of clips.  YouTube must use caution as a growing business by specifying the placement of ads before, during and after videos.  Lohmann also provides a few examples of how YouTube could generate revenue through careful advertising, such as the use of the “featured videos” section. 
    Relating to my paper, this article articulates points crucial to the understanding of the simple arguments on both sides of whether YouTube exists as a safe and legal organization.  It outlines the business concerns on which YouTube’s liability dependent.  This article shows how it is important to explore the many aspects of the company that would affect it’s status under the DMCA’s requirements.

This is the case, long awaited, between Viacom and YouTube.  In this case, Viacom makes a number of requests compelling YouTube to release information as well as media and content.  While there are eight motions, they are not all granted; five are denied.  This is interesting, as we must note the reasoning behind Judge Louis L. Stranton’s decisions on July 1, 2008.
    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.  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.  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’t make a significant showing of need.  Also, YouTube claims that they could figure it out by using it.  Judge Stranton does grant the motion to compel production of all removed videos.  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).   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.  This passes because of the insufficiency of an IP address to identify personal information.  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 “No sufficiently compelling need is shown to justify the analysis of “millions of pieces of information” sought
by this request.”  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.  This is because the plaintiffs have already been promised the only relevant data in the database, they do not need Google’s confidential map of how it runs its advertising business.  Viacom is also denied the ability to access all private videos, except the data related to these videos that is not the actual content.  
    This is essentially the main case that I will use as an example in my paper in determining whether or not YouTube’s business violates copyright laws.  I hope to explore my other sources as well to see if there are any rulings that I do not agree with.  It is important to note that the Judge’s decision is not to shut down YouTube, but to assure that any infringement is addressed, while maintaining YouTube’s ability to function as a unique video sharing network.

Robert Tur is an award-winning helicopter pilot and journalist who does business licensing and selling videos, photographs, and a variety of other products found useful by all kinds of media including Internet, television, radio, motion pictures and print.  
This case is of interest to me, because it shows an interpretation of the legislation that opposed YouTube.
    On July 14, 2006, Tur filed this action for copyright infringement and unfair competition against YouTube claiming that his videos were uploading to the YouTube server and made available to the public without his permission.  In October of the same year, YouTube claimed safe harbor protection under the DMCA as codified in 17 U.S.C. 512(c), which states that “In general, a service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if...”
    The DMCA applies this protection to internet service providers on the condition that certain requirements are met (These requirements are explained in my other articles and cases.)
    In this particular case, the court makes its decision on the criteria that the DMCA requires the provider to have the “right and ability to exercise control over the infringing activity on its site.”  As defined by other cases (mentioned in this particular case), this right and ability is more than just the ability to remove or block access to content that has been flagged.  The requirement includes some antecedent ability to limit or filter copyrighted material.
    The court denies YouTube’s motion.  I cite this case in order to show a case that looks like it will be a problem for YouTube if any other cases appear.  With such a high expectation for the ability to prevent infringing material from going public, YouTube is pressured to develop some technology to allow this screening, otherwise their liability may put them in a hole, financially.  I find this case to be a different interpretation of the DMCA legislation than my previous sources.  This should provide a basis for a counter-argument.

Vanderbilt University – Law School

Vanderbilt Law Review
Trevor Cloak, The Digital Titanic: The Sinking of YouTube.com in the DMCA’s Safe Harbor, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1559 (2007).

    In this article, Trevor Cloak begins by introducing the start-up of YouTube and how it soared in popularity to eventually be purchased by Google for its advertising revenues.  He then continues by describing how it is potentially protected by the DMCA given its status as a qualified ISP.  Cloak devotes a section to describe copyright law prior to the DMCA and how issues were dealt with before the safe harbor provision could be applied toward the liability of certain companies (ex case: Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, p. 1567 and Religious Technology Center v. Netcom Online Communication Services, Inc. p. 1568.)  Netcom was ruled not directly liable for infringement because it didn’t directly facilitate the infringement.  Automated processes did so without the knowledge and deliberate uploading of the operators.  Questions were raised howeer, if it received and financial benefit from the infringing material.
    YouTube may or may not have been considered to be a Direct Copyright Infringer depending on how the legislation is interpreted (prior to the DMCA) (p.1572 – use Netcom case as example).   In addition, however, YouTube could be guilty of Vicarious Copyright Infringement (p 1573-1576).  The DMCA as a result, allows these charges to be lifted and for the promotion of creativity.
    This article provides a few new interpretations on the ability of YouTube to seek safe harbor protection.  I hope that the historical cases that it provides as examples will be of aid in determining how the courts have traditionally viewed the copyright issues.

This case provides an example of when a service provider was not granted the safe harbor protection of the DMCA.  Perfect 10, a nude-women-photos website and magazine, claim copyright, trademark, and rights of publicity violations against Cybernet Ventures, an age-verification service (AVS).

            Cybernet Ventures is the largest web AVS and it create revenue from users registering their website, usually getting there via links from affiliated sites, to whom Cybernet pays commission.  In response to Perfect 10’s  claims, Cybernet attempted to hide its direct financial interest or relationship, claiming that even 10,000 infringing images wouldn’t establish significant worth (pg 25 of pdf).  In doing this, it attempted to cover up a strong argument that wouldn’t allow it to afford DMCA protection.  In addition (on pg 25), we see that Cybernet failed to quickly take action in removing infringing material after Perfect10 produced a copyright infringement notice.  This conflicts with the DMCA’s “notice and take-down” provision. 

            The court refused to apply the DMCA safe harbor protection on Cybernet, due to those mentioned reasons.  Cybernet simply did not meet the requirements as stated in section 512(c) regarding financial benefits and immediate takedowns.  Between these two ideas, the financial benefits test will be of most relevance to YouTube’s standing, as we know much of its revenue is based off ads and user visits.  Just as the infringing pictures helped boost Cybernet’s revenues, the infringing videos probably increases YouTube advertisement revenues.  I think this could provide a historical case for the determination of YouTube’s legality, depending on what is found concerning YouTube’s ad placements.

 

Hendrickson v eBay et al
165 F. Supp 2d1082 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Kelleher
September 4, 2001

            In this case, Hendrickson is the copyright owner of a movie and wants to sue Ebay, an Internet auction website along with two employees, claiming that they infringed copyright laws.  Ebay moved for summary judgment, relying on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA (Section 512).

            It seems as if the case was decided based on the actions (or lack of) of Hendrickson.  Ebay did not have actual knowledge of the sale of infringing items, as Hendrickson’s notice didn’t match the requirements of the DMCA.  It didn’t contain a statement adequately identifying the infringing material.

            There was also an issue concerning Ebay’s right and ability to control infringing activity.  Ebay didn’t have the right and ability to exercise control, and so was immune to liability under the safe habor provisions of the DMCA.  Richter and Ebay were determined to be innocent infringers, not knowing that any type of infringement was resulting from the sales.

            This case serves as a reminder to the importance of procedural effects and its impact on decision.  This case was chosen to go along side with my source from YouTube’s Terms of Use and their procedural explanation of a Notification of Copyright Infringement.  It highlights the importance of awareness of all parties of the legal facts.  It’s interesting that this ruling can almost be followed by the idea that ignorance and nativity influenced the decision of an interpretive system on technical terms.

In defense for YouTube’s legality, I find this to be an important source.  An analysis of YouTube’s Terms of Use will serve to really understand how this company views its own existence as a creative content-sharing forum rather than one with the goal of distributing infringing material.  In these Terms of Use, we can see that YouTube explicitly states its policies regarding the posting of unauthorized copyrighted works, repeat infringers, and the termination of such users’ accounts.  Users are not permitted to upload illegal content as doing so will result in penalty by law.  Any uploading of risky material would be done at the user’s risk, as YouTube will assume no responsibility for any illegal or offensive content. 
    In dealing with content control, YouTube states that it reserves the right to determine if User Submissions (video or text) are appropriate by their own discretion and to remove these User Submissions if deemed necessary without the prior notice to the user.  This shows how YouTube has put forth the effort to prevent or stop infringing videos, unlike the case of Grokster, which explicitly attempted to spread unlicensed material. 
    Taking these policies and actual enforcement of these policies into consideration, we have a better idea of YouTube’s goals.  It is important to also consider the actual enforcement, as evidence of YouTube not taking action would be detrimental in its protection by the DMCA.  The DMCA is also mentioned in the agreement, explaining how to submit any copyright infringement notices if necessary. 
    These Terms will serve, in my paper, to provide evidence that YouTube in fact promoting legal and acceptable behavior.  It serves as a strong point to show that YouTube includes these Terms in order to seek safe harbor by the DMCA.

Jason Breen – UCLA School of Law

    In this article, Jason Breen briefly examines how YouTube would fare under different theories of copyright infringement and then discusses if the DMCA would be able to provide a safe harbor if YouTube is determined to be liable for infringement.  The article reviews YouTube based on the different criteria as listed in the DMCA.  The article goes through the different requirements as listed by a few of my other sources.
This includes technical and logistical issues such as how it operates or notifies its users of copyright law.  It also assures that YouTube is, in the aspects of the DMCA, considered a qualified service provider, because nothing else is protected under section 512 under Title II.  The topics of not knowing of the infringement or not having the ability to control infringement also lead to the belief that YouTube will be defendable.  Additionally, as YouTube relies on advertisements to generate revenue, the close associations between ads and infringing videos throughout the website could render YouTube disqualified for the safe harbor provision. 
    While this article is much longer, it should serve as a great source that goes into more detail in the subtopics that should be analyzed in determining its protection.  It also takes YouTube and compares it to a number of older services that suffered under copyright infringement law, such as Aimster, Grokster, and Napster. 

Name: Branwen Buckley (J.D. Candidate, Columbia Law)

            Branwen Buckley, a J.D. Candidate (2008) at the Columbia Law School, analyzes the possibility of YouTube defending itself under the protections the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against Viacom’s claims of copyright infringement.  In this article, Buckley discusses the criteria of the DMCA in first, an objective manner.  In doing this, she also shows how these points support and go against YouTube’s position. 

            She then provides several cases including Religious Technology Center v. Netcome, and Costar Group, Inc v. Loopnet, Inc. to show how YouTube could be a passive conduit for content posted by users.  It goes into detail how YouTube operates as a business, generates revenue and financial benefits, manages links, and deals with notifications of infringement.  It also describes the automatic user generated system which operates the websites.

            It gives a Fair Use Analysis, descriptively going through the four criteria as stated by the Copyright Law. 

            In the case that YouTube loses the case, she describes both Primary and Secondary liability and is likely or unlikely to happen in regards to that.

            This article will be helpful, simply by providing all of the information outlined above, in addition to some opinions and possible outcomes.  She recognizes that while there is much copyright infringement, the website seems to be made to promote a sharing of original, transformative, and creative videos.  YouTube’s user agreement shows this.

            This is probably the most helpful article I’ve gone through so far, as it provides facts, opinions, and gives both an objective and subjective view to the case.

    This source linked is only McCain - Palin’s initial correspondence to YouTube.  YouTube’s response can be viewed here:
    This letter by the McCain campaign expresses former presidential candidate’s displeasure with YouTube over questionable infringement claims made by the national news media.  After the campaign created advertisements using well known video clips from national media sources and uploaded them to YouTube, news organizations like CBS sent YouTube DMCA takedown notices for hosting videos that they believed infringed on their copyright.  Central to their claim was the fact that they did not want their videos and personalities to be seen as endorsing one candidate or another.  YouTube promptly removed the videos, which drew the ire of the McCain campaign.  Even though YouTube was properly following DMCA protocol, McCain lamented that the process would take too long to be resolved (between 10 and 14 days), and asserted that YouTube should make a fair use judgment itself before removing the video.  McCain asked for special treatment, allowing for videos uploading by the official candidates’ campaigns to be looked at differently when receiving takedown notices.  In YouTube’s response, the video host declined these requests claiming that it was simply following the procedure laid out in the DMCA to protect its safe harbor status, and that they could not discriminate between uploaders.  A McCain representative asserted that the DMCA does not necessarily define with what specific speed a host must comply with a takedown notice, and responding automatically is not mandated.
    This situation provides one of the central examples I will use in my paper.  McCain’s difficulties with the intricacies of the DMCA provide a high profile example of how certain provisions can be abused.  It is particularly valuable because even though the correspondence is between the McCain campaign and YouTube, both organizations are effectively complaining about the takedown and notice process, albeit to different degrees.  Even as YouTube says it is simply following protocol, it criticizes those who abuse the takedown process.  Meanwhile, the McCain campaign reiterates the problems many see in the lack of timely recourse alleged infringers have in the process.

    In this article, Paul Alan Levy echoes the calls by some to combat abuse of the DMCA notice and takedown system by shaming those who make illegitimate claims and the others who needlessly comply, as well as take possible legal action against them.  Levy also argues that the better approach would be to reform the DMCA itself, especially since both the McCain and Obama had problems with the system, and both would be a position to change the law regardless of the election outcome.  He proposes 5 specific changes in the DMCA.  The first would be to allow ISPs and service providers to not effectively be required to immediately takedown allegedly infringing material, while still maintaining safe harbor status.  Secondly, he proposes making it easier for people who receive bogus takedown claims to receive compensation via statutory damages, presumably deterring copyright holders from filing false claims.  He also suggests notification by the service provider to the possible infringer before the content is removed, as well as requiring takedown notices to be submitted to a public database for viewing.  Finally, Levy argues for all intellectual property types to be protected, not just copyright.  His agenda is put forth at a time when both potential presidents, having felt the negative effects of the DMCA, may be more motivated to remedy it.
    This article is extremely beneficial in that it outlines a significant number of ways to amend the DMCA and resolve the current notice and takedown problem.  His position is not explicitly based in anger, aggravation, or retribution, and offers a clear list of ways to fix a broken system.  I will primarily use this article to offer constructive remedies to the problem I plan to expose.  Particularly, his suggestion to allow the service provider to notify the alleged infringer prior to the content being removed, while simultaneously not surrendering its safe harbor status, is a proposal not without flaws, but could possibly be an important part of the recommendations I make to fix the system.

    This legal analysis by Fred Von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is empathetic of the McCain campaign’s fair use/YouTube problem, as the EFF has been championing internet freedom and fair use principles for many years.  However, he is highly critical of McCain proposed solution, which would put the burden on YouTube to conduct legal reviews of videos posted by political candidates that receive takedown notices.  He thinks this notion is backwards, since in terms of political speech, amateur commentators are the ones that need special protection from phony takedowns.  Despite the failings of the McCain proposal, he goes on to identify the true problem in these situations: the news media organizations.  He believes it is their responsibility to refrain from sending bogus takedown notices for legitimate fair uses.  As for a recommended response by the public when they don’t, he encourages public shaming of the companies, as well as potential lawsuits for submitting a takedown they knew was illegitimate.  He also supports the claim made by the McCain campaign that it is not incumbent upon YouTube to follow this strict procedure in the case of fair use, which YouTube itself could reasonably determine with human intervention.
    Lohman’s analysis will be useful in that it finds fault with all parties involved in the process: the alleged infringers, the copyright holders, and the host.  He also puts forth a compelling reason why McCain’s solution would not be ideal from a societal point of view.  The actual reason McCain’s proposal was rejected was because YouTube said that their hands were tied in the process; Lohman says that even if YouTube could treat politician's videos differently, they still shouldn’t.  The author is transparent in placing most of the blame on the news organizations themselves.  Other articles refrain from making the obvious claim that if it weren’t for the media foolishly asserting a broad claim to copyright, this wouldn’t be a problem.  Finally, he corroborates the assertion made by the McCain campaign that YouTube does not necessarily need to act with as much immediate speed as it says it does.

    This order from the US District Court for Northern California rejects Universal Music Group’s request to dismiss the lawsuit against the music company by Stephanie Lenz.  Months after posting a clip of her son dancing to a Prince song to YouTube, Universal asked the video host to remove the clip, claiming she was infringing their copyright of the song “Let’s Go Crazy.”  Following the procedure under the DMCA, Lenz told YouTube that her video was legal, and it was restored – Universal did not pursue legal action against Lenz since her use was clearly fair.  However, in conjunction with the EFF, Lenz sued Universal for acting in bad faith, and asked for compensation covering her legal costs.  She alleged that Universal specifically did not “belie[ve] that [Lenz] actually infringed a copyright,” and that its takedown request was entirely improper.  This order covers the most recent development, with Judge Jeremy Fogel refusing to dismiss the lawsuit as Universal wanted, and declaring that copyright holders must take fair use into account before issuing DMCA takedown notices.  Universal had argued that it was not incumbent on copyright holders to consider a potential fair use defense, and that doing so would be costly and disruptive.  The Judge rejected this argument, and while admitting that he did not believe it to be likely that Lenz could eventually win the lawsuit against Universal, still allowed it to progress nonetheless.
    Fogel’s decision is going to play a big role in my paper, as this order sets precedent for other courts to look fair use at when determining takedown-abuse cases.  The decision is unique in that it helps define what a copyright holder must do to clear the “materially misrepresents” hurdle set in Section 512, adding consideration of fair use.  Previously, it could have been possible for copyright holders to more recklessly send takedown notices to service providers, and make a credible claim that they were not active in misrepresenting since a limited (and undefined) amount of care was given to the process.  With the addition of fair use, the burden is higher, which I will argue is beneficial to the takedown process.  Despite the judge’s assurances that adding a fair use component will not add a tremendous amount of complexity to the process, it will also be worth mentioning how many people disagree with this claim, believing that the four factor test for determining fair use is inherently nebulous and difficult to use.

Judge Stanton ruled in favor of Viacom in some aspects of his decision and in favor of Youtube in others. In favor of Youtube, he denied Viacom access to Youtube’s search code, noting that it is a trade secret that cost Youtube thousands of man-hours to produce and that it will not help Viacom determine the extent to which Youtube is liable. This decision came after numerous programming experts testified that there is currently no search code in existence with the ability to distinguish between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works. Similarly, the judge denied Viacom access to the Video ID Program. The judge also denied Viacom’s request for access to all videos currently available on the Youtube servers. Viacom claimed this would help them determine how much knowledge Youtube had relating to infringing videos, but Youtube’s response that they have been entirely accommodating to Viacom’s requests was favored by the judge. The judge stated that there is “no compelling need…to justify the analysis of millions of pieces of information.” The judge similarly denied access to the Advertising Schema, stating that this was both a trade secret and not necessary information. However, the judge favored with Viacom in many aspects, in an attempt to allow them to research how much power Youtube has over infringing videos on its website. He mandated that Youtube produce information about all videos that have already been removed so as to determine the amount of copyright infringing videos that have been available in the past. Most interestingly, he allowed Viacom access to all information about who has viewed which videos and how many times they have been viewed. This includes IP addresses, screen names, and videos viewed for every user. Viacom states that this will allow them to know, proportionally, whether copyrighted videos are typically viewed more often or less often than non-copyrighted videos. The judge also allowed Viacom access to the Google Video Content database so as to allow Viacom to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing activity.

This decision is interesting because it details the opinions of a judge who has considered both Viacom and Youtube’s opinions. He allows Youtube to retain several of its valuable coding secrets, but makes large concessions to Viacom to allow them to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing material. The reason for this decision can likely be linked to the relatively young age of cases like this. The DMCA has only been active for 10 years and many aspects of website liability for users infringing on copyrights are still uncertain. By allowing Viacom access to Youtube video records, the court is essentially hoping that Viacom will either show that Youtube is guilty of indirect liability or that Youtube has no control over the infringement beyond its current efforts. Thus, the impact of this court decision will likely come from Viacom’s analysis of Youtube video information. In my paper, I plan to further examine the same topic: whether or not Youtube is completely free from liability for infringing material.

The author, in this entry from a Web 2.0-centric blog, details Youtube’s recent efforts to both appease copyright holders and to promote creativity amongst its users.  In January 2007, Youtube unveiled plans for a Revenue Sharing program which would give certain Youtube users a portion of ad revenue Youtube receives based on the number of hits their videos garner. Youtube will give even higher exposure to users labeled as “Directors,” people who are allowed to upload films greater than 10 minutes in length. Similarly, Youtube will share revenue with some copyright holders based on ad money they receive for the viewing of infringing videos. The author discusses the possibility that Youtube will have to increase the number of ads it shows to make up for the profit lost from the Revenue Sharing Program. This leads to the dilemma of Youtube losing viewers if advertisements begin to show up before minute-long clips. To increase the effectiveness of heightened advertising, Youtube may have to adopt a TV style model in which “an advertiser pays Youtube (and thus the content creator) X amount for every viewing.”  To appease advertisers, Youtube’s new Audio Fingerprinting technology could be used to prevent inappropriate videos from being paired with reputable brands. This would be similar to Google Adsense which provides targeted advertising to firms. The problem relates to copyright because if Youtube adopts targeted advertising, which it has recently begun to do, it will be receiving revenue for ads placed in front of infringing videos for which it does not have deals settled with the copyright holders, thus increasing the possibility of them being vicariously liable. The solution, the author notes, is to use Audio Fingerprinting to detect copyrighted material and then inform the copyright holder, who will have the option to either remove the material or share revenue gained from the video with Youtube.

This system could potentially solve the problem of both Youtube and the copyright holder losing money from various transactions. Youtube loses money when it devotes bandwidth and time to a video only to have the video deleted due to a takedown notice. Similarly, the holder loses money wasting man hours filing takedown notices and finding the actual infringing material. If both groups work together, as Youtube intends, companies will be much less likely to sue Youtube, especially if they are actually making money from infringing videos posted online. Similarly, Youtube decreases its chance of liability because it is increasing its promotion of original works by paying some users. By offering directors a part of the revenue earned from their original and creative works, Youtube is encouraging users to make their own films rather than simply splicing together copyrighted material (which leads to zero profit for users). Thus, with the adoption of the revenue sharing plan detailed above, Youtube has simultaneously appeased the copyright holders and expanded its promotion of original material, showing courts that there are indeed significant “non-infringing” uses for Youtube.

Lexis Nexis Article

October 10, 2006 Tuesday 4:22 PM EST
Will Google Pay for YouTube Infringements?

BYLINE: Natali Del Conte Natali_DelConte@ziffdavis.com

SECTION: NEWS AND ANALYSIS

LENGTH: 856 words

HIGHLIGHT: YouTube may have been able to avoid copyright lawsuits by simply not having any cash to go after. But Google makes a much better target.

Copyright Notice that Youtube posts for its Users.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom International Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against Youtube claiming massive copyright infringement by the defendant. Viacom filed the suit after sending takedown notices to Youtube demanding over 150,000 copyrighted videos be removed from its servers. In its complaint, Viacom notes “millions have seized the opportunities digital technology provides to express themselves creatively.” However, Viacom argues that Youtube has “harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale.” Youtube, the complaint urges, has built a library of infringing video clips in order to increase profit. Rather than attempting to remove all infringing videos, Youtube “has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the Youtube site…to detect infringing videos and send takedown notices to Youtube.”  Viacom claims that Youtube increases its own value at the expense of copyright holders through the following methods: displaying advertisements above infringing videos, allowing users to embed infringing files onto other websites to draw users to Youtube and subsequently increase ad revenue, and permitting users to keep copyrighted videos hidden from the public. Viacom also notes that Youtube hosts the videos on its own servers, rather than simply acting as a conduit through which users pass files. This, in Viacom’s interpretation, makes Youtube the primary copyright infringer as it is the entity that is actually “performing” the copyrighted footage.

Youtube is one of the more influential websites in the development of Web 2.0. The website has essentially ushered in a new age of internet democratization by giving all users the ability to create and host content. Viacom’s complaint fails to take several important copyright issues into account, however, decreasing the lawsuit’s validity in several key issues. First and foremost, it assumes that Youtube has a clear intention of hosting copyright infringing content. While the court decided that Grokster, in MGM Studios v. Grokster, did not have sufficient non-infringing uses to escape liability, Youtube was developed as a website where average internet users can upload home videos. When asked about a memory associated with Youtube, users will typically discuss a humorous home movie they saw rather than an illegal movie clip. Similarly, Viacom assumes that Youtube is responsible for policing its site for all copyrighted material, failing to mention the DMCA once in the lawsuit. The Safe Harbor clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, removes service providers from liability for any copyrighted material that users upload to their servers, specifically if the content provider removes material that a copyright holder insists is infringing. Youtube immediately removes material upon receipt of a takedown notice, typically without even ensuring that the entity which issued the notice is actually the copyright holder. Youtube is similarly protected by the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, which protects sites which do not induce others to commit copyright infringement. Rather, Youtube encourages users to produce their own works.

In early 2007, Viacom sued Youtube for extensive copyright infringement. Youtube claimed protection under the Safe Harbor law in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but arguments still abound regarding the extent to which Youtube is liable for copyrighted files uploaded to its servers. In my paper, I will attempt to answer that question: how liable is Youtube for copyright infringement committed by its users and what can it do to ensure protection from further liability? I will begin my bibliography, and my paper, with the original Viacom lawsuit, followed by articles detailing the emergence of the DMCA. I will then cite several articles and cases arguing both for and against Youtube's innocence. This will be followed by several examples of steps Youtube can take to shield itself from liability. I will finish my argument by citing the judge's decision in the Viacom case, which still fails to offer a definitive answer of whether or not Youtube is liable for infringement.

    This article written by Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford University, sees Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube as preempting Congress’ preeminent role in determining copyright law.  Lessig cites to case law and the Constitution to conclude that sound policy and history support deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted material.  He opines that Viacom is trying to play an end run around Congress and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) with its lawsuit against YouTube. 

    He explains that the DMCA was intended to protect copyright owners while making it possible for internet service providers to avoid crippling copyright liability.  It achieved this result by immunizing the internet service provider from liability for infringing material posted by its users as long as it removed the infringing material upon notice by the copyright holder.  According to Lessig’s article, the statute expressly places the burden of policing content on the copyright holder and not on internet service providers like YouTube.  Through its complaint, Viacom is trying to shift that burden onto YouTube. 

    Lessig claims that Viacom, not satisfied with a Congressional statute, is turning to the courts to “update the law.”  According to this article, it is not the role of the courts, but rather the role of Congress to modify the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.  He states that Viacom’s lawsuit will result in the internet facing years of uncertainty in litigation and possibly undermining the intent of Congress to forge a cooperative relationship between copyright holders and online service providers through the DMCA’s statutory framework. 

    The underlying assumption in this article is that YouTube will have a valid defense under the DMCA to Viacom's claims of infringement.  This paper will critically analyze Lessig's fundamental assumption that the DMCA provides a viable defense for YouTube.  An important part of this analysis will be Lessig's argument that the court should defer to Congress.  Specifically, the paper will keep in mind Congress' intent in enacting the DMCA and its balancing of the rights of copyright holders with the need to protect internet service providers who are the pioneers of an emerging means of communication.

       This article written by Fred von Lohmann, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, examines how YouTube would fare under the copyright law and, in particular, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  According to the author, the stakes are tremendous because YouTube’s website hosts infringing copyrighted material but it also facilitates the free flow of information and spawns original and transformative creativity.  The author opines that in light of YouTube’s business operations it legally should be shielded by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.  However, he cautions that YouTube must continue to walk a careful line so as not to run afoul of the safe harbor requirements.

       The article examines several of the DMCA’s requirements mandated by Congress.  First, the author examines YouTube’s policy in implementing the termination of repeat infringers and the removal of infringing content.  He concludes that YouTube’s written policy and implementation meet the DMCA’s requirements concerning termination, as well as notice and take-down.  Second, the author finds no obvious pirate sites on YouTube which is an important factor in analyzing the knowledge requirement.  Third, in examining the direct financial benefit test, Mr. von Lohmann explains that it represents an important hurdle for service providers.  In the case of YouTube, he finds that it has chartered a cautious course by putting advertising only on search result pages rather than on the clip pages themselves.  He suggests, however, that YouTube may feel increasing pressure to develop innovative business opportunities other than by limiting the placement of advertising on its website.  In that regard, YouTube will have to experiment with different revenue strategies that do not run afoul of the DMCA. 

       For purposes of my paper, this article provides valuable information on YouTube's business operations.  According to the author, YouTube largely complies with the requirements mandated by the DMCA, but the financial benefit test could be problematic for it.  In determining whether YouTube should successfully meet the requirements of the DMCA, an examination of YouTube's operations will be critical and this article will be helpful in that regard.

       This law review article written by Jason Breen from the UCLA School of Law analyzes YouTube’s defenses to the Viacom lawsuit and, in particular, the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  The article examines each of the requirements mandated by the DMCA and how those requirements have been interpreted by the courts.  It also points out where some of the court decisions appear to be inconsistent. 

       This article examines requirements of the DMCA that YouTube must meet in order to qualify for safe harbor protection.  First, the author reviews whether YouTube accommodates “standard technical measures” used by copyright owners to identify their copyrighted works as required by section 512(i) of the DMCA.  Second, as the protections of the DMCA are only available to qualified service providers, this article examines whether YouTube will qualify as a service provider and notes that the courts have broadly interpreted this provision.  Third, YouTube must establish that it does not have actual or apparent knowledge of the infringing material.  By providing a plethora of cases, the article concludes that the high standard of proving the provider has the requisite knowledge would likely weigh in YouTube’s favor.  Fourth, according to the article, a more difficult hurdle for YouTube to meet is the requirement that YouTube not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity where it has the right and ability to control such activity.  The article points out two conflicting lines of judicial reasoning regarding this two-part test.  Using citations provided by this author and after reading several of these cases (some of which are included in this Annotated Bibliography), I can address in my paper how these conflicting theories might impact YouTube’s defense under the DMCA. 

       The author concludes that it is likely but far from certain that YouTube will be able to avail itself of the DMCA’s safe harbor in light of the uncertainties in the law and factual questions as to YouTube’s operations.  This article is helpful in analyzing YouTube’s operations, Viacom’s allegations, and in providing citations to court decisions which I will read and apply to the facts of this lawsuit in order to make my own judgment as to whether YouTube should prevail under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

In March 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube based on YouTube's direct and secondary infringement of Viacom's copyrighted material. YouTube denied Viacom's allegations and argued that it is protected under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which Congress promulgated to provide a safe harbor to shield on line service providers from monetary damages or injunctions for infringing material posted by their users. In enacting the DMCA's safe harbor provision, Congress devised a statutory framework in which copyright holders and service providers could cooperate, thereby maximizing creativity - an underlying goal of copyright law. The Viacom lawsuit sets the stage for a battle between copyright holders and service providers of user generated content. Thrust into the middle of this battle is the court which must determine whether YouTube meets the requirements of the DMCA's safe harbor provision. My paper will address the question of whether or not YouTube will meet the requirements of the DMCA's safe harbor provision, taking into account Viacom's arguments and YouTube's counter arguments as applied to the statute's language and legislative history and the surrounding case law.

       This law review article analyzes whether or not YouTube will be able to defend itself against Viacom’s claim of copyright infringement under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  The author examines the case law concerning the specific requirements of the DMCA including: 1) qualifying as a service provider; 2) the actual or apparent knowledge test; 3) the direct financial benefit test; and 4) the ability to control the infringing activity test.

       What is particularly helpful to my paper is that the author provides extensive information on YouTube’s business operations.  The article details the automated and user generated nature of YouTube’s site which is relevant to the DMCA’s knowledge and control tests.  It also provides a discussion of how YouTube generates revenue.  An analysis of YouTube’s revenue stream is relevant to the financial benefits test required under the DMCA.  The article’s discussion of YouTube’s business will be relevant to analyzing whether YouTube should meet the DMCA threshold and core requirements, which are fact dependent.

       The author opines that the site’s easy to use technology provides a ready platform for showcasing original and transformative videos.  Against this backdrop of user creativity, it is clear that YouTube’s website also contains unauthorized copyrighted works.  However, the author provides evidence of YouTube’s good faith efforts to run a legitimate business not premised on the unauthorized use of copyrighted works.  Such information is pertinent to an overall sense as to whether YouTube’s purpose is to simply pirate other companies’ videos or to provide a venue for sharing new and original video content.

       The author concludes that given the uncertainties surrounding how the court may interpret the various requirements of the DMCA, it is unclear whether YouTube will be afforded safe harbor protection.  For the purpose of my paper, this article will be helpful in providing factual information as well as citations to various court decisions which I will read and analyze so that I can reach my own conclusions concerning the application of the DMCA to YouTube.

       This article written by Michael Fricklas, general counsel at Viacom, sets forth Viacom’s legal and factual arguments supporting its position that YouTube should not be afforded safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  First, he argues that YouTube is not the kind of entity envisioned by Congress in enacting the DMCA.  YouTube, he claims, is more than a storage service provider; it is an entertainment destination.  Second, Viacom’s attorney claims that YouTube’s policies with regard to infringing content are selectively implemented with more proactive action given to companies in which it has a licensing agreement.  Third, the rampant unauthorized copyrighted material on YouTube demonstrates that it has the requisite knowledge of infringing activity.  He cites as further support for a finding of knowledge the fact that YouTube creates a list of “featured videos” on its home page.  Fourth, Mr. Fricklas states that YouTube receives a direct financial benefit from infringing activity.  He contends that infringing content generates popularity and more viewers which increase advertising revenue.  Fifth, he asserts that YouTube has the ability to control content.  As evidence of this fact, Mr. Fricklas states that YouTube’s managers remove pornography.  Finally, as a policy matter, he claims that requiring copyright owners to patrol the web on an ever burgeoning number of sites would be unfair.  Forcing YouTube to obey copyright laws would not stifle innovation.  Instead, Viacom’s attorney argues that protecting intellectual property spurs investment and thereby the creation of new technologies.  It is, therefore, critical that the law ensure that YouTube respect the rights of copyright owners, like Viacom.

       Mr. Fricklas’ arguments are, of course, partisan.  However, they shed light on Viacom’s perspective and the facts that it may rely upon during the lawsuit.  The article also crystallizes some of the hurdles that YouTube will have to overcome if YouTube is to receive safe harbor protection.  In reaching my conclusion as to whether YouTube should meet the DMCA’s requirements, it will be necessary to present and analyze Viacom’s arguments.  This article will be helpful in that regard.