If You're Going To Target One Wrong Company In Your Lawsuit, Might As Well Make It Two

from the nice-try-but-no dept

Tue, Jul 17th 2007 6:31am — Carlo Longino

The head of a Los Angeles news agency has managed to grab himself a lot of publicity by filing the first lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement last year. While it would appear that YouTube would enjoy protection from such suits, thanks to Section 230 Communications Decency Act, which shields site owners from liability for content uploaded by users, plenty of other companies have chimed in with their own similar suits. The merit of the news agency's suit is debatable at best, but it seems pretty clear that the correct people to sue, in any case, would be the people who uploaded the video, not YouTube. However, the guy that owns the agency now says he might sue Apple for "secondary copyright infringement", since the iPhone can view YouTube videos. This is pretty ridiculous. What's next? Suing Dell since they make computers that can access the YouTube site? Suing mobile phone companies whose handsets can access it? What about companies that make those internet fridges. Should they be worried?

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

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits
Companies: apple, google, youtube

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Matt Bennett, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:02am

Judges simply have to throw out about 10x more cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- skeptic, 17 Jul 2007 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  The plaintiff just hurt his own case. By threatening to sue Apple he is demonstrating that it is also illogical to be suing Google or anyone except the original violator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vmcto, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:16am

Not good enough
Throwing them out doesn't do any good without punishing them for bringing completely bogus lawsuits into the courts to begin with.

Loser pays has a lot to recommend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:25am

not far enough...
I think we should start suing the electricity providers... Think of all the illegal activities that require electricity. They should know better and not let people use their power for such things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W4RM4N, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:32am

Think Like a Lawyer
The reason he wants to sue Apple (iPhone) is because Apple is using You Tube access as a selling point. Dell doesn't. That doesn't make it right, just explaining why.

This is ridiculous though. A site SHOULD be protected from the content that their users upload as long as the site does not push the copyrighted material as the "attractable content." You Tube does not push you to copyrighted material, and have made moves to remove it when found. The users should be held accountable, but what I don't understand is, what does the user have to gain from it? Why post copyrighted maetrial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:39am

Here's an
Kick everyone very hard in the nutz that brings a bogus lawsuit to court (of if they have no balls, punch them in the tits really hard).

That would deter many people from filing bogus suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMM, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:41am

a better idea
Wouldn't he be much better off suing Microsoft? Internet Explorer permits the public to view the infringing videos on YouTube and Microsoft has a much deeper pocket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:44am

Go further
What about suing a spouse of an employee of the company that makes the video processor chip that goes on the video card that goes in the computer that views the video that was put on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:48am

Sue me!!!
Sue display manufacturers. If it weren't for their devices, there would be no copyright infringement online.

While they're at it, sue the sound board manufacturers. Their devices allow anyone to hear to audio restricted by copyright privileges.

By the way, sue the spectacles, lenses and contact lenses manufacturers and dealers, and the doctors that prescribe them. If it weren't for those devices, the visually impaired would not be able to view videos with copyright restrictions.

Hey, sue me. I wear glasses!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inc, 17 Jul 2007 @ 7:53am

They should really be suing every person in the world that has eye sight and can hear. They have the ability to view this "copyrighted" material and thus are in violation. Imagen all the money from all those people... artards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KhoolhandZ, 17 Jul 2007 @ 8:18am

Maybe they should sue themselves for making the copyrighted material in the first place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who am I to say, 17 Jul 2007 @ 8:36am

Sueing
I do believe it should be a crime to sue if claim is fraudgulent and held against a company, group or individual. I do believe the lyer and the plaintiff should be fined and also pay restitution to whom ever that decide to sue. In other words: people need to be responsible for there own actions and stop blaming other for the own stupidity. With every action there is(should be)and equal or greater reaction!

There was a lawsuit that involved Ford (I do believe it was Ford). Story goes like this: Mom driving and rear ended another vehical. Stupid daughter (around 26 yrs old) had feet on dash board when accident take place (broke both ankles). The mother and daughter decides to sue Ford and won. My question is how: because mother was a complete moron. Why didn't the daughter sue her own mother, she was at fault. The other question is: how did it even make it to court. If that is not bogus, than I don't know what is.

Another bogus lawsuit: the judge who sue a dry cleaner for 60 million dollars over a pair of dress pants that were lost.

Major BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Sueing
  i agree with you there should be a fine for baseless lawsuites, but im sure lawers wouldnt allow that.
  
  kind of reminds me of this article:
  http://techdirt.com/articles/20070712/180142.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles Griswold, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Sueing
    i agree with you there should be a fine for baseless lawsuites, but im sure lawers wouldnt allow that.
    The lawyers wouldn't necessarily have any say in the matter. All that has to happen is for Google to start counter-suing. A few costly, high-profile counter-suits and people would think twice about bringing frivolous lawsuits against Google. Google wouldn't even have to make back the money they spend in bringing, and defending against, lawsuits; all they have to do is make it too costly for anyone to sue them without having a really good case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhereAmI, 17 Jul 2007 @ 9:44am

Oh friggin great!!
My friend emailed me links from YouTube, does that mean him and are going to jail?.. wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 17 Jul 2007 @ 10:53am

Should also sue themselves - as I wouldn't have known about it, except that it was in the news. Thereby informing me of it - otherwise I wouldn't have even known about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stickler for details, 17 Jul 2007 @ 11:06am

DMCA, not CDA 230
Carlo,
I agree that the claim against Apple is dubious at best. Think about it: if the iPhone makes Apple secondarily liable for YouTube videos, why not the iPod too for enabling people to play illegally downloaded mp3s too? Such a suit is interesting to hypothesize about because it pits the old Sony case (device w/ non-infringing uses ok) with Grokster (inducement theory). Arguably, the iPhone might be inducement under Grokster because, as the argument goes, no one uses YouTube except to watch infringing videos and allowing YouTube on the iPhone is to encourage infringement. Like I said, dubious, but I digress.

It's pretty much settled that CDA 230 and its broad immunity for content uploaded by users does not apply to copyright; CDA 230 only applies to defamation. Thus, if I libel someone in this comment (like so and so beats his wife), Techdirt isn't liable if so and so sues. But if I post the new Harry Potter book here, then that's a whole other issue and the CDA 230 doesn't have anything to say about it. The protection that a website gets from user uploaded content that infringes copyright is under the DMCA, notably DMCA 512(c). The DMCA offers a similar kind of protection from liability as under CDA 230, but it isn't nearly as broad or well-settled. I can only dream that the DMCA was as broad and inclusive as CDA 230, but alas, it's not.

It's an important distinction because you're in trouble if you assume that just because it's uploaded by users you, as website, are off the hook. The DMCA has all these little sometimes tricky requirements to qualify for safe harbor status that aren't nearly as clear cut as we would like them to seem. I only bring this up because what gets said on Techdirt trickles down to other parts of the web, and all of a sudden there's widespread confusion about what people can do online and even what law to look to if their concerned. That would be bad because everyone should read Techdirt.

Stickler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 11:10am

lawsuit against keyboard makers to...after all, you need the keyboard to type in the URL....unless you can prove that you only used a mouse, then we go after the mouse maker

and lets not talk about the evil monitor makers (they are the central to everything about the web)

wow lets sue everyone...ill be rich!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon (profile), 17 Jul 2007 @ 11:21am

Whoa, there
Doesn't the iPhone only show YouTube videos that have been converted to some proprietary format? If so, then there probably actually is a case against Apple if Apple is taking infringing videos from YouTube and converting them to iPhone format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon's an Idiot, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re: Whoa, there
  The iPhone shows YouTube content in their Safari browser. What's an iPhone format?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon (profile), 17 Jul 2007 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Whoa, there
    I am wrong. It's YouTube that's doing the conversions according to Gizmodo. The format I was referring to is H.264, whatever the heck that is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avatar28, 17 Jul 2007 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re: Whoa, there
  Doesn't the iPhone only show YouTube videos that have been converted to some proprietary format? If so, then there probably actually is a case against Apple if Apple is taking infringing videos from YouTube and converting them to iPhone format. Nope. It just runs off the m.youtube.com site as far as I know. You can also access it with other mobiles too. The format, as far as I know, is still flash video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2007 @ 11:29am

No - Use it as a training ground for your lawyers
They should take him on - use novice lawyers so they get the training, and let him waste his money and time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ranon, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:07pm

I know
I know, I know. Let them sue the internet companies, because without them the bits of data would not flow. And while they are at it, let them sue the pizza manufacturers, without whom I woudn't be watching the youtube video at home anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keybored, 17 Jul 2007 @ 12:36pm

Frivolous Lawsuits
These tie up assets and costs everyone of us dollars.

How long will it be; I predict maybe 5 years, the net will be so common, information will be shared so widely, copy write laws will go by by. Sharing will be too rampant, same for music... just watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave, 17 Jul 2007 @ 1:13pm

Everyone involved knows it's frivoulous...
This 'news' is only to give the person free hits and to spread FUD about the iPhone. Hmm, who would be happy about a link being drawn between Apple's iPhone and copyright infringement....MS and Universal.... Why is techdirt even publishing this crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake Lockley, 17 Jul 2007 @ 8:00pm

According to your logic, I should legally be able to send a TV station a DVD I bought and allow them to air it as much as possible and make as much money off advertisements until the copyright owner contacts them. And even then the TV station would get to keep the money.

Just because it makes you happy doesn't make it legal. Face reality, Google and YouTube are breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avatar28, 17 Jul 2007 @ 9:34pm
  
  Re:
  Doesn't the iPhone only show YouTube videos that have been converted to some proprietary format? If so, then there probably actually is a case against Apple if Apple is taking infringing videos from YouTube and converting them to iPhone format. Nope. It just runs off the m.youtube.com site as far as I know. You can also access it with other mobiles too. The format, as far as I know, is still flash video. According to your logic, I should legally be able to send a TV station a DVD I bought and allow them to air it as much as possible and make as much money off advertisements until the copyright owner contacts them. And even then the TV station would get to keep the money. Just because it makes you happy doesn't make it legal. Face reality, Google and YouTube are breaking the law. Nope, your analogy is flawed. In your example, you are sending the DVD to them. They are having to review it and then decide to air the content. If every video uploaded to you tube was manually examined then it might be a valid analogy. YouTube et al are not breaking the law because they don't have any way to know what content is or isn't copyrighted. As long as they pull the clip when notified by the copyright holder that it is infringing and they remove it, then they are, under the law, in compliance. The fact of the matter is that while there is plenty of copyrighted content on YouTube there is also plenty of non-copyrighted content out there. Enough that it should clearly qualify as having substantial non-infringing uses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]