Would You Believe The RIAA Doesn't Agree With The Judge In The Viacom/YouTube Ruling?
from the what-a-shock dept
I can't imagine this surprises anyone, but Slashdot points us to the news that the RIAA is upset by the judge's ruling in the Viacom/YouTube case, which found that YouTube is protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Of course, Hollywood and the music industry have always hated the safe harbors -- which were only put in the DMCA to appease internet companies and keep them from fighting the rest of the DMCA. But, of course, the entertainment industry doesn't like to give even an inch on these matters, so this case has always been about moving the goalposts and effectively decimating the safe harbors to the point that they are meaningless. The RIAA's statement was posted to its blog (where you cannot comment, of course) and is short, sweet and totally misleading:Add our voice to those who disagree with a recent summary judgment ruling in the court case between Viacom and YouTube.This is both wrong and amusing at the same time. The court's ruling was hardly "expansive." It covered the same ground as numerous other cases and basically kept the status quo. It was Viacom that was trying to expand the meaning of the law in effectively wiping out the safe harbor provision.
We believe that the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the DMCA upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy. It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites. As the White House recently noted in its strategic plan to combat intellectual property theft it is essential for service providers and intermediaries generally to work collaboratively with content owners to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement. We need businesses to be more proactive in addressing infringement, not less. We expect the Court of Appeals will better understand the balance Congress struck when it enacted the DMCA.
The idea that this ruling discourages providers from trying to minimize infringement (not theft -- and it's really silly that the industry keeps calling it theft) has already been debunked. Most of the serious companies in the space want to work with the entertainment industry and have put in place voluntary filters -- not because the law requires them, but because they feel it makes business sense. So the ability to work collaboratively is still very much there. And, frankly, it's pretty insulting that the RIAA thinks that tech companies will only work with the RIAA if the law requires them to do so. Of course, it's so very typical of the entertainment industry mindset, where everything is a fight and everyone is in competition. It's as if they don't understand non-zero sum games. The internet world has never needed legal forces to work collaboratively with the entertainment industry. They've wanted to do so time and time again. Napster tried very hard, and the RIAA hit them with a lawsuit. The number of innovative startups sued by RIAA members to force those companies to cough up some equity is too long to list here.
RIAA labels don't work collaboratively. They sue. Arguing that this particular ruling will make it somehow harder to work collaboratively is ridiculous. The tech firms were never the ones running to the lawyers. They were always willing to partner. But, of course, at this point, I guess expecting intellectual honesty from the likes of the RIAA remains a pipedream.
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
List of Voices
I bet that is a pretty darn short list of voices.
The courts chose correctly here and responsibility needs to be placed correctly. Youtube is not uploading these videos and they even try to help out corps like Viacom. That Viacom abused everything to try to give themselves better ground to sue over (Viacom uploaded a bunch of videos) is just wrong. And companies like that try to tell us that we are the immoral ones. Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of Voices
That's an assumption, isn't it? Who knows how many voices they hear inside their head telling them it's better to sue than to adapt.
I can even bet one's saying "My precious! Give me my precious!" and we all know how that ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: List of Voices
From a psychology standpoint, I think the answers would be telling....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: List of Voices
Weeee! Hey, Jones. Check out what that monkey's doing. Hey, call Gail yet? Yeah, I'd like to bone her. Sue. Call my wife. Tell her I'll be a little late tonight. Sue. Also, get with Netflix and Redbox and tell those bitches to put another 28 day delay on their rentals. Our DVDs still aren't selling. Sue. Stupid monkeys. I want one.
But this, too, is just an assumption. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: List of Voices
I considered voices based on sources, so each head only counted once in my mind.
At least that's how 2 out of the 3 voices in my head told me to count =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of Voices
Voila! Self-referential circular consensus has been achieved!
Hey, if it worked for all the industry "evidence" it can work for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is not good, some examples. The U.S. is a known bully internationally you think any country will stand by and watch the U.S. try and corner them? That is why genetic modified crops are banned in Europe, that is why the Russians, Chinese and Europe are developing their own GPS systems, that is why a lot of countries are developing rockets. In the case of Iran, you would think the world would be doing everything in their power to stop it, but because of decades of bullying others into compliance short of a handful of countries there is no one else on the side of the U.S. and some are even taking the opposite side.
That is state level stupidity now on the business front that is the same, if the industry think people will stand by and come back in droves to give them money they are very mistaken, people will create alternatives legal alternatives and will kick the industry ass, just keep pushing to see what it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't underestimate the industry's ability to invent a reason why these alternatives are not legal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's not that the industry always deems legal services illegal. it's that the industry won't play ball with services unless a certain dollar figure has been reached and that dollar figure is just too expensive for any startup to pay and turn a profit.
the industry stance is something like this: we have X dollars a year in costs and Z dollars in revenue. not many people are buying our content and our asking price, and we need money so no content to new services unless they can come up with Y=X-Z dollars.
the problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay, it's that the prices that people are willing to pay don't cover the industry's costs. the industry has a product problem for which legal services just aren't the answer.
the industry isn't desperate enough yet to lower its asking price because it still believes that the enforcement approach will ultimately bear fruit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But most importantly, those monopolies weaken any industry to the point it makes them vulnerable to competition from the outside, no amount of protection will make them survive, other better equipped will come in and buy them or just out-sale them.
Think how the orange industry in the U.S. is becoming a Brazilian production machine, you think that orange juice you are drinking is American owned?
The telecom industry is being seized by a Mexican and Asian companies(that produce the best hardware now), the entertainment industry is all but American, the auto industry we all know what it is.
What gets me flabbergasted is that this all happened before is how it played out in the 80's with the electronic invasion by Japan, you think people in congress didn't try hard to stop it? think again they tried every dirty trick in the book and failed, now why are those people repeating that same mistake?
Why are they not letting the industry go down hard and see better equipped ones rise?
The industry was right on one point, if there is no serious consequences there is no incentive to change, they will be doing what they are doing and will fail because ruthless and better trained people will emerge elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For one, the order reads out of the statute what is essentially know as "red flag" notice, though in all fairness is was following a 9th Circuit decision that did precisely this.
More troubling, however, is the part of the court's order declaring that safe harbor applies even if the party seeking safe harbor would otherwise be deemed a contributory infringer. Surely the court did not intend to state such a broad rule, and on appeal this portion of the order will likely be scaled way, way back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry I'm not seeing where this ruling would prevent suing someone who knowingly helped distribute specific copyrighted works. What I read is a reaffirmation of the safe harbor principle that a provider of a legal service (such as a paper company or a social web site) cannot be held liable for the autonomous actions of their users/customers.
Could you share the specific text you are concerned about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do not believe this breadth was what was intended to be said, but unless the order is modified to state it more accurately it seems likely the appeals court would do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For one, the order reads out of the statute what is essentially know as "red flag" notice, though in all fairness is was following a 9th Circuit decision that did precisely this.
This is not actually true. I realize it's a favorite talking point of industry lawyers and lobbyists, but this is simply wrong. The decision does not get rid of "red flag" notice. It clarifies what is considered a red flag and what is not. "General knowledge" is not a red flag, because there is no way to know which content is actually infringing and which is not.
That's how the law has been interpreted for ages -- with the one possible exception of the Fung/IsoHunt case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Respectfully, I disagree. The "safe harbor" provisions contemplate situations wherein a service provider such as YouTube has either "actual" or "constructive" knowledge. In the Viacom decision the court essentially removed "constructive" out of the mix, an issue that will almost certainly figure prominently in an appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That was my read as well.
And don't forget that the judge ignored YouTube's specific knowledge of infringements of Viacom's works. There was plenty of evidence of that.
We'll most likely see some of this reversed on appeal. I can't wait to read the next round of briefs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, how the heck is this removing 'constructive' knowledge? All the judge stressed was that 'theoretical' knowledge does not equal 'actual' knowledge. That, as always has been the case, is the responsibility of the rights-holder to determine - it's one of the prices of getting that restrictive right in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, how the heck is this removing 'constructive' knowledge? All the judge stressed was that 'theoretical' knowledge does not equal 'actual' knowledge. That, as always has been the case, is the responsibility of the rights-holder to determine - it's one of the prices of getting that restrictive right in the first place."
I thought that part of YouTube's argument was a red herring. What matters is that YouTube had specific and red flag knowledge of infringement of Viacom's works and did nothing about it. I thought either one of those alone would disqualify YouTube from DMCA safe harbor.
I could be wrong though.
The judge also said that YouTube could induce infringement and still get safe harbor: "To such a provider, the DMCA gives a safe harbor, even if otherwise he would be held as a contributory infringer under the general law."
I don't think that's right either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
512 is directed to "actual" or "constructive". One comment, for example, misses this important point by saying that "theoretical" does not equal "actual" and, thus, further inquiry is at an end. Of course, this ignores the need for examination of this "theoretical" (the commenter's term, certainly not mine), and this is why "constructive" is also included in the law. Burying one's head in the sand to avoid "actual" clearly madates further examination to determind if "constructive" is alternative met.
Even a cursory reading of the uncontested facts in the case, as noted in Viacom's motion of SJ, strongly suggests that both "actual" and "constructive" are presented. I find it curious that the uncontested facts, particularly in light of the rules governing SJ proceedings. received short shrift that bordered on no consideration at all.
The language of the decision re contributory infringement could easily be read to support safe harbor is satisfied even in situations such as "Yes, there was a torrent pointing to a location entitled "Get your copy of movie (fill in the blank" even before it is presented to the public in any form whatsoever. I got it from a film editor who works for the studio". Yes, I gave detailed help to users to secure copies of the movie, but this is OK because the rights owner had not as yet informed me in the manner specified in 512 that the copy was a violation of the rights held by the owner. No formal notice...no liability on my part."
If this is proper statutory interpretation, then it seems I have labored for decades under an erroneous understanding of the rules. The same can be said of my immediate colleagues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if this film editor was told, by studio executives, to release a cut of the movie as a promotional tool... what then? The OSP should remove it anyway, "just in case" it's infringing?
If that is what the ruling says, then the ruling is a good one. The situation you present is exactly how the process should work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand how you don't get this, it seemed pretty simple. The original lawsuit *from Viacom* listed videos that *Viacom* uploaded because an authorized video looks exactly like an unauthorized one.
What the courts *rightly* said is that it is not a Service Provider's responsibility to hunt down unauthorized content, and even if the Service Provider knows that there is a very high chance that there is unauthorized content, they are not *required* to act on that data until the copyright holder tells them to.
If I were Google, I'd take down *all* Viacom connected videos, because there's no way for Google to know which are authorized and which are not, and Viacom clearly wants Google to err on the side of caution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it ain't so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.physorg.com/news197215479.html
"Piazza and Walsh's groundbreaking preliminary study uses empirical analysis to investigate the effects of different types of human rights abuses on a state's susceptibility to terrorist attack. Categorizing abuse into torture, political imprisonment, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings, the authors conclude that the restriction of citizens' rights actually fuel terrorism. However, they also find that governmental repression in response to terrorism is limited, suggesting that human rights advocates might more effectively focus on other areas of threat."
Will misguided enforcement laws fuel civil disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, you know it's friday again which means that this day of the week somehow has some significance and it means that you are posting another one of your friday posts again because you have nothing better to talk about. must be friday and friday's are significant because they somehow negate the importance of your post.
(Glad I can be at service and help TAM out by saving him the trouble)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets be fair here mike, the only think the online companies really want is a large an plentiful supply of free content that they can make money off of, with advertising and "fast download" offers. blocking out content goes against their business model, and will only be done under duress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets be fair here mike, the only think the online companies really want is a large an plentiful supply of free content that they can make money off of, with advertising and "fast download" offers. blocking out content goes against their business model, and will only be done under duress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, it's a good thing the public at large is supplying them with all that free content, that they themselves made!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
blocking out content goes against their business model, and will only be done under duress.
I dunno, I think Hulu is willing to bend over backwards to appease the backward-looking content providers. To the point where it might just cause them to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if you ran a restaurant and right outside was a bunch of people giving away the same food (and using your seats to let them eat) it would not take long for you to go out of business. you are charging, they are not. you have to follow the rules (like health code) they do not.
sorry, but this ruling absolutely stinks, and puts an incredible onus on copyright holders to have to set up a google like system of bots to try to track down misuses of their content on a minute by minute basis, while those who profit from it can thumb their noses and yell "safe harbor", even as they know the content should not be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"if you ran a restaurant and right outside was a bunch of people giving away the same food"
Do they have to produce this food or do they just copy it (with a food replicator)?
If they have to produce it, they'll be out of business pretty soon. Sorry, money has to come from somewhere.
If they just just copy it, then so can I. This means that there are no production costs (assuming replication doesn't cost anything). The only cost would be in producing the original food. But the fact that I was first gives me an advantage: While others still need to acquire food samples and begin replications, I have already flooded the market with mine. MINE are the original. All I need is to take advantage of that fact to sell something else.
"(and using your seats to let them eat)"
This is just stupid. No one is using anyone's seats (i.e., this does not translate into anything file-sharing related).
But actually, my seats are a scarce product I can charge for. The food I can give away for free, but I could make people pay for the comfort of my seats (nobody can replicate physical space and comfort yet). The other would have to offer something similar to be able to compete with me, but, as I have mentioned, I showed up first, so I'm already well established in the business. They are not.
"it would not take long for you to go out of business. you are charging, they are not"
Ok, then I am a dummy. Why would I charge for something that anyone can replicate for free? I can charge for something else (like seats, as mentioned above).
"you have to follow the rules (like health code) they do not"
Ok, fine, they don't. But people will get sick/die. That is an advantage I can explore by providing people with healthy meals in a clean environment. (most) people will gladly pay to have a pleasant healthy environment to eat and people will quickly shun the other place because it is harmful. THEY will be the ones out of business pretty soon.
Now about your other misguided comment:
"sorry, but this ruling absolutely stinks, and puts an incredible onus on copyright holders to have to set up a google like system of bots to try to track down misuses of their content on a minute by minute basis, while those who profit from it can thumb their noses and yell "safe harbor", even as they know the content should not be there."
Problem: how does Google know what infringes? In fact, can you come up with a set of rules to determine what is infringing content and what is not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To far gone ...
They have gone to far down the path they are following with ACTA, DEA, three strikes, etc. They will tell the truth less and less and become more secretive as the time for the signing of that abortion of an agreement (ACTA) gets closer. So expect out right in your face lies over the coming months as their confidence goes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..the RIAA is upset by the judge's ruling"
... "As the White House recently noted in its strategic plan to combat intellectual property theft".. Hmmm, that strategic plan that the riaa/mpaa mafia group convinced the white house of after buying gulible VP Biden's vote. Biden is just as delusional as the recording industry mafia. };P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we need is an "Everybody punch an XXAA lawyer in the nose" day.
How so many of them have lived as long as they have is a mystery to all, and the saddest fact of all is that some of them have doubtless reproduced, thus polluting the global gene pool even more. At this point, it's simply amazing that the landfills of the country aren't piled high with their cadavers. Somehow, I suspect they're not even biodegradable (their last chance at contributing to society).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this has happened before and will happen again.
Between lessons unlearned and rulings like this one, I have been wondering just how much profit they've missed out on between the inception of the internet and now. Take news like the record number of bittorrent downloads we hear every once in a while, with Avatar being the most recent. Can you imagine how much money they could have made if they had chosen to adapt by figuring out ways to monetize stuff like this instead of burning bridges, fighting a war they cannot win? It is something I've never been able to fully wrap my head around, other than petty human nature being what it is of course.
One thought I had is that by fighting for as many new laws as they can get passed right now, perhaps they feel they will be better prepared for whatever the next great technological leap may be. Seems kind of pointless though given how people simply ignore any laws they feel are unjust. The government needs to consider what is best for everyone, and not just industry like they're currently doing. For example, imagine copyright infringement becoming a criminal act, entailing much harsher punishment. Would that stop filesharers? Highly doubtful. If anything, I think it would make people more inclined to share as a means of fighting back. Would such a change in law be beneficial to anyone at all? Certainly not the tax paying public, nor law enforcement who already have their hands full with far more important issues. That much is obvious.
I guess that just leaves the entertainment industry, but how exactly can they possibly benefit by being allowed to remain static in an ever changing market environment? If they had succeeded in their attempt to outlaw the VCR, then all of the resulting profit they saw from it would never have come about. This is the most important thing governments and their courts need to keep in mind when making decisions that will affect everyone for a long time to come, and that is the fact that even though the industry thinks it knows what is best, often times they are wrong and don't. Government granted monopolies are useful, but only up to a certain point. Beyond that point any benefits it may provide turn to harm. Not just for the entertainment industry, but for everyone to whom all culture rightfully belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the core of it all
Back in the days the labels could promote an artist and that artist would sell, people had very limited options when it came to discovering music outside the ad campaigns.
Theese days, with youtube and similar sources we (the consumers) can both discover unadvertised music, and more problematically (for the labels) the individual songs on a record.
The result is that if there is only 2 good songs on a record, people tend to buy those 2 songs from iTunes and ignore the rest, translating into a net loss from the record companys point of view, they cant trick us into paying for crap anymore.
THIS is what they're really scared of, information control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the core of it all
Back in the days the labels could promote an artist and that artist would sell, people had very limited options when it came to discovering music outside the ad campaigns.
Theese days, with youtube and similar sources we (the consumers) can both discover unadvertised music, and more problematically (for the labels) the individual songs on a record.
The result is that if there is only 2 good songs on a record, people tend to buy those 2 songs from iTunes and ignore the rest, translating into a net loss from the record companys point of view, they cant trick us into paying for crap anymore.
THIS is what they're really scared of, information control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@36
This message brought to you by BEING HUMAN ITS COOL, the only company whose nice clear drinks are actually just water form the tap with pretty writing on labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a better idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The time of the RIAA is OVER!!!!
Its just a matter of time now.
Boycotting ALL bands/musicians under the RIAA :
NOT 1 CENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://copyrightandtechnology.com/2010/06/23/google-wins-summary-judgment-against-viacom/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]