Viacom Denies Sending Takedown Letter On Colbert Parody
from the wasn't-us! dept
Well, here's an odd one. Following Viacom's massive takedown effort of infringing videos on YouTube, there were quite a few complaints of bad filings on content that wasn't infringing, leading a few people to sue Viacom for violating the DMCA. Thursday morning, the news came out that the EFF and some others had sued Viacom over the takedown of a parody clip that used footage from The Colbert Report. The lawsuit claimed that the content was fair use parody, and Viacom was violating the DMCA in filing the notice. Nothing too surprising there. Where it gets strange is that Viacom then went and looked at the video... and claimed it had no problems with it and said it was unlikely that the takedown notice actually came from Viacom (they fail to explain who else would have sent such a takedown notice).The folks over at the EFF are finding that difficult to believe. As they point out:
(1) the YouTube page specifically says that the video was removed due to a copyright complaint from Viacom; (2) YouTube's counsel verbally confirmed that the video was removed due to the DMCA takedown from Viacom; and (3) after sending a counter-notice to YouTube, Brave New Films received an email from well-known online copyright enforcer, BayTSP, apologizing for the mistake and asking that any questions be directed to VIACOM@BayTSP.com.BayTSP, of course, is the company that many entertainment industry companies hire to enforce their copyrights online. While Viacom may be technically correct that they did not send the takedown notice, it seems clear that BayTSP did so, acting as Viacom's agent in the matter. The EFF is calling on Viacom to explain how this happened, and to highlight how important it is not to file such bogus claims, points out: "if Fox got The Daily Show pulled off the air for running a clip from Fox News, Viacom wouldn't be satisfied with an "oops, we didn't mean it" the next day."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Par the course
2. Rather than go throught trouble of gathering real evidence they just use the "throw every at the wall and see what sticks" stategy or go on a fishing expedition.
3. Sue the acutal infingers into oblivion and then shift the blame for any mistakes on someone else.
Makes you wonder why if copyrights are so important they hire an outside company to enforce them. The industry is too busy with other things to bother sending their own takedown notices?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: by Overcast
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aha!
I know hiring someone to kill for you is wrong but could someone please tell me why that is wrong but Viacom is somehow not responsible for those takedowns?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not fair use, it's wholesale robbery in the eyes of many, and hopefully the courts will back that up bigtime.
When you have take down oders for over 100,000 infringing clips, it is understandable that a few others got caught in that huge number. If their research had not been so good, it is likely they would have accidently picked up more.
This issue is very different. Google says they have a right to make money off the intellectual property of others without getting permission, which is simple stealing in the eyes of many. Viacom accidently issued a take-down, then said they were sorry.
Doesn't anyone see the moral and legal distinction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wisdom Only
Second: Viacom isn't apologizing for anything. There saying they didn't do it.
I know I'm probably one of many that will reply to you but what you said was so full of it that I had to respond.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: by Wisdom Only
While I can agree that posting copyright material directly and not for the purposes of supporting a greater material is copyright infringement, the satirical posting that this post is discussing is obviously immune. This is a clear cut case, which is why Viacom is back peddling and trying to pull out of it.
Now, from what your saying, it is acceptable to directly abuse a law as long as you are correct most of the time? So if I just sentence everyone as guilty in a court room and have a 90% success ratio (they are guilty), the other 10% are just collateral damage? No company has any greater rights then an individual. If you make a mistake, you are liable. Also, the medium can not be blamed for the fact that the user was not educated on copyright laws (which are so vague even the lawyers are not sure how to use them). Do you really think most of the people posting clips knew it was direct copyright violation?
If your name was true, you would have had the "wisdom" to think through your stance from both sides before throwing it out randomly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So... where are they breaking the law? And this "in the eyes of many" that you seem to enjoy using... who are they? Most people disagree with you unless they're greedy and want to get paid over and over again for old work because they're too lazy to do anything new.
If there's a building with 100,000 terrorists, but there's 5 American hostages in there (lets say one is your mother, but the argument still works even if that weren't the case), would you be all for just bombing the entire place? I mean, its in the name of protection... whats the harm that a few people have their rights denied?
You can't deny the rights of a few to protect the rights of ONE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Wisdom"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robbery? What robbery?
It is neither fair use (in the strictest legal sense), nor robbery.
Who are the "many" that you speak of, and how many of them come from outside the content industry?
How were Viacom "robbed"? If there were a clear case of loss (like posting enough of an entire movie to give the story away), they might have a moral leg to stand on, but I fail to see how posting clips of a movie could result in anything other than free publicity.
Looks like another case of "It's our stuuuuuufff!" to me. What next? The movie business attacking review sites who post plot details and spoilers?
Doesn't anyone see the moral and legal distinction?
Yes. Copyright laws are wrong - they should be about commercial exploitation. Before digital/Internet technology, they were similar enough that copying = copyright violation, but this is no longer the case.
Unless Google are costing Viacom real money or causing them harm, I see no problem of morality.
Oh, and there is no such thing as "intellectual property"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More from Wisdom
Trigger>> how is Google ripping anything off?
They are making money off intellectual property that doesn't belong to them.
Casper>> No company has any greater rights then an individual. If you make a mistake, you are liable. Also, the medium can not be blamed for the fact that the user was not educated on copyright laws (which are so vague even the lawyers are not sure how to use them). Do you really think most of the people posting clips knew it was direct copyright violation?
This is all goofy talk. If by "company" you mean "corporations," they do have special rights in many areas. That's why people form them. It is not true that a mistake means that someone is liable. Sometimes it's just a mistake. In law, there is a thing called "de minimis" which is a legal action too small to be taken seriously. 1 bad take-down notice out 100,000 could fall under this category. Finally, ignorance of the law has never been a defense. Everyone would claim that if they could, even murderers.
Paul>> Google and YouTube aren't into ripping anybody off. They provide a service and that is it. Its just a service that you can use OR misuse. They can't be held responsible if somebody uses it to break the law.
Well, this is your opinion, but also why Google should be sued. Let's see what the courts say. A thief steals something, then sells it to a "fence" who makes money off it. When they arrest the fence he says, "I didn't sell it. In fact I told the crook I don't buy stolen stuff." But the fence still goes to jail because he is a criminal too.
The law is currently giving a free pass to ISPs who take on board infringing material by use of take-down letters. but if somone is making a business out "fencing" the material, as is perhaps the case with Google, then they need to be sued so they don't do it anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More from Wisdom
Technically everything that is put on youTube is intellectual property. Remember that law that automatically protects anything created by an artist? Google is making a profit off of a service to allow those creators to bring those creations into the public eye. It's not Google/youtubs fault that someone is using this platform for displaying copyrighted material. If you're going to blame someone, blame the person that posted the item in question.
Don't blame TechDirt if I post the entire Harry Potter Book
Don't blame yourself for the a$$ posting child porn on your cork board
Don't blame the road worker for the Mustang speeding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More from Wisdom
Strictly speaking, they are not making any money off the content posted. Your logic is flawed. They provide a medium and make money off contracts and advertising.
"Sometimes it's just a mistake. In law, there is a thing called "de minimis" which is a legal action too small to be taken seriously. 1 bad take-down notice out 100,000 could fall under this category."
Sorry, but that doesn't work as an argument. You are attempting to mitigate the value of the individual. De minimis would only work if it were 1 company targeting 1 company and all 100,000 were directed at them, and 3 were found to be incorrect. This on the other hand, is 1 take down sent to 1 person. It is the sole basis of the suit and can not be minimized.
"Well, this is your opinion, but also why Google should be sued. Let's see what the courts say. A thief steals something, then sells it to a "fence" who makes money off it. When they arrest the fence he says, "I didn't sell it. In fact I told the crook I don't buy stolen stuff." But the fence still goes to jail because he is a criminal too."
Copyright violation can not be directly compared to theft no matter how much you wish you could. Copyright in an infringement on their ownership of the concept of the product, not the product it's self. In this sense, since it is not YouTube posting the video and YouTube is not "selling" the video, they can not be sued for it. In fact, that's not even what the lawsuit is alleging. If you actually read the lawsuit you would see that they are being sued for "not adequately preventing" the posting of the videos. Since there is no definition of a minimum requirement, and the medium is not at fault for content posted, there really isn't a case.
I'm sorry that you disagree, but you really should do some research before posting. A prime example is your last paragraph, where you ignore all current laws and previous rulings to make a judgment based off your own narrow opinion. YouTube is simply providing a medium and is in no way encouraging copyrighted material. They have complied with every take down notice, and have in no way violated any laws. This is why they are NOT being sued for violating a law, and are instead being sued for not adequately preventing it.... which is a random attempt to tie them up while they have a chance to get into the online video market. This is not a righteous crusade for content, this is a planned marketing move to try to make room for their own products launch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: More from Wisdom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Aha!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: More from Wisdom
>>> YouTube is simply providing a medium and is in no way encouraging copyrighted material.
That, of course, is the question and will be settled in court.
I'm rooting for the guys who risked millions to create the intellectual property, not those who are profiting just by putting it in their filing system.
Not only Viacom, but also the Publisher's Assn who are going after Google for something similar... publishing copies of work in a way detrimental to the economic value of the work.
I predict that when the dust settles in a few years, Google will have to pay royalties for intellectual property they use (the satndard way of doing business), and will not get a free ride like they are now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More from Wisdom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hole on a second...
I was under the impression that under the law, only copywright owners were allowed to issue take-down notices.
If that is true, why is BayTSP sending these take-downs? Also, wouldn't BayTSP be guilty of some kind of fraud charge?
Note that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just asking the question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hole on a second...
BayTSP is doing it for pay, as they have been hired by Via to do. Outsourcing.
No hint of fraud, just a standard way of doing business.
PS... Ford doesn't make all their car parts either. They outsource them to other companies and just bolt them together. Same with Viacom and virtually all other companies.
You didn't know this???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To: More from Wisdom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To: More from Wisdom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]