Youtube Sued! Will Copyright Kill The Video Star?

UPDATE

On June 23, 2010, almost 4 years after posting my video, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York published a substantive decision and came to the same conclusion that I did: Youtube was protected from copyright infringement claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because Youtube acted promptly to take down infringing videos when it received proper notice from copyright owners. The court said that Youtube's "general awareness" that infringing videos were on the site was not enough for Youtube to be liable for those infringements. The court emphasized throughout the opinion that Youtube is protected as long as it doesn't know about (and ignore) specific infringements. The decision also emhasized, as I did, that Youtube is nothing like Grokster, which had been found to be a contributory copyright infringer. The court held that Youtube did not derive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity that it could control, because Youtube could not control activity of which it was not specifically aware.

The court emphasized more than I did the "knowledge of specific infringements" point, and that also allowed the judge to more elegantly address the direct financial benefit point. Good job SDNY! (Of course, Judge Stanton had a voluminous record of facts to work from!)

Despite these differences, my video is still a good summary of this case (and accurately predicted the outcome, so far.) Please note that Google is now in the position of Youtube, the defendant, and Viacom is in the position of Robert Tur, the plaintiff.

Thanks to everyone who watched my video and posted comments and provided ratings. Now we wait to see if Viacom will appeal. Ron in D.C.

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION

Learn about the recently filed copyright case: Robert Tur v. Youtube! A mysterious Washington D.C. copyright lawyer explains the key court decisions and the relevant federal law. And he predicts the outcome of the case!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• FOTCV
• youtube
• copyright
• case
• infringement
• DMCA
• law
• lawyer
• washington

[pacanime]

youtube has led to me buying some films and music by hearing them here. I think it helps me decide on some buying choices.

[Sonicbeta999]

I hate copyright laws.

[beckondorf1]

Thank you, Mr. Awesome Lawyer. You're claims ARE LEGIT.

[beckondorf1]

Indeed, I do think that Youtube is partnered with every music producer.

[oftenlostinwhat]

i used this for a school essay, lol i use bomb-mp3.com for free musics. MP3 players are way better than iPods. my friend as spent 40$ on an iPod, 30$ on songs. Ive spent 12 bucks on a mp3 and have over 50 free songs :)

[demazphantom]

we need a peer to peer video hosting site!

[mrdeleted]

@juliug don't use WMG songs. You can use audioswap for partner music

[mrdeleted]

@YellowBigLemon no they won the case

[youvebeenthunderstru]

Four years later, or slightly less than four years, what's the answer? Yes. Yes it did. Fucking corporate interests. 

[WaddleBuff]

Now they have taken over 100,000+ frickin' clips from YouTube for no reason at all. And if 3 vids get taken away from you, your channel is taken away. Imagine the lives ruined when their channel was taken away and they were sued. We need to stop this. We need to take a stand.

[IronyIsGood]

FOTCVresults 1 - 20of about 212

I expected more...

[haiheri212]

I hate the copyrights... :( I spent about two weeks making an amv and then it just gets deleted and i'm sad :(