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.

In early 2007, Stephanie Lenz recorded a video of her children dancing to the song “Let’s Go Crazy” recorded by Prince. She uploaded the recording to Youtube and, roughly three months later, received a takedown notice from Youtube notifying her that the video infringed on a copyright held by Universal Music. Lenz issued a complaint stating that the video was actually a Fair Use of Prince’s music and should therefore be put back onto Youtube. She said her video was not taken down based “on a particular characteristic of the video or any good-faith belief that it actually infringed a copyright,” but rather Prince’s personal desire to control all of his work. The plaintiffs in this case accept that the video includes elements that are under copyright by Prince and Universal. Their argument is whether or not the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “requires a copyright owner to consider the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” The judge in this case noted that no other court case has actually determined the merits of whether the phrase quoted above pertains to Fair Use. The judge determined that, despite no previous ruling, Fair Use is not an infringement of copyright and is a lawful use of the copyright. The court thus ordered that a brief review of potentially infringing material must be completed by content owners prior to sending a Takedown notice, to ensure whether it is a Fair Use.

This decision strengthens my paper’s argument that many potentially infringing videos on Youtube may, in fact, be examples of Fair Use. While only a small percentage of songs available on file sharing websites could be constituted as Fair Use due to the skill required to sufficiently transform songs, many videos on Youtube may be shielded from unwarranted takedown notices because of this ruling, due to the fact that transforming and mashing video clips is much easier than transforming songs. The complaint that a large portion of Youtube’s videos are copyright infringing and that Youtube encourages such videos is thus proven false. In reality, many of these “infringing” videos actually make up the user-generated content that embodies the spirit of Youtube: a community of Web 2.0 users producing unique and individual content to share with others.  Had this decision not been made, unchecked takedown notices could have harmed time-sensitive and important videos that were actually examples of Fair Use. While Universal argued that this checking for Fair Use is an unnecessary waste of time, the Judge was quick to point out that the Copyright Act of 1976 established 4 simple, quick factors for determining Fair Use. This decision upholds the hard work of individuals who successfully transform copyrighted material, and it prevents large corporations and recording artists from overreaching their bounds by unfairly removing Fair Use videos. Youtube’s legitimacy as a website made up of a majority of unique material is thus upheld.

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.