Sun Rises In The Morning, Sets At Night, And Viacom Appeals YouTube Ruling

from the carry-on dept

Wed, Aug 11th 2010 6:02pm — Mike Masnick

It's almost not worth mentioning because everyone knew this was going to happen one way or the other from the time Viacom first sued YouTube in the first place, no matter what the outcome of the initial case. However, with Google/YouTube getting summary judgment in its favor back in June, it was only a matter of dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's on the paperwork for Viacom's appeal (well, technically, Viacom needed to wait for the original summary judgment to be official). That's all been done and the appeal is now officially in motion, with the paperwork filed to start the appeals process. Get ready for a few more years of back and forth arguments before any of this means anything.

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, dmca, safe harbors
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

14 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2010 @ 7:29pm

ViaCon trying to con its way through the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2010 @ 7:32pm

Well this was bound to happen, those people are using less important rullings to make it common law what they want, they go after the small ones first to create precedents and then when it is all set they try the big ones.

Is like using pedo crazy talk to pass ridiculous laws for one reason and then use those same laws for other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kyle clements (profile), 11 Aug 2010 @ 7:36pm

makes you wonder
In cases like this, when everyone just knows the losing side will appeal, what's the point of even going through the first few steps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2010 @ 8:52pm
  
  Re: makes you wonder
  Simple: To pay the lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Aug 2010 @ 1:33am
  
  Re: makes you wonder
  There is a point to it, and the judge knows it. That’s why he was careful to explain his reasoning in meticulous detail, to leave as little wiggle room for appeal as possible.
  
  Now it’s up to the appeals court to confirm how well he did his job.
  
  #include <stddisclaimer/ianal.h>
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2010 @ 7:41pm

Endless appeals system indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 11 Aug 2010 @ 7:52pm

So enlighten me...
We knew this was going to happen. But will it really do anything when the safe harbors are right square looking Viacom in the face? What new argument could they try to make their case look any better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard, 11 Aug 2010 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re: So enlighten me...
  I think the argument will be a "we can do this all day" settlement. Google stands to loose a lot more than Viacom will spend on staff filed appeals. At some point, Google may fork over some cash just to take off the risk prospectus.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2010 @ 10:37pm
    
    Re: Re: So enlighten me...
    Such is an abuse of our legal system.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 12 Aug 2010 @ 7:59am
    
    Re: Re: So enlighten me...
    Or google could just hire some cheap lawyers to deal with the case just keeping it going and not spend much money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul`, 11 Aug 2010 @ 11:52pm

Now, I'm gonna guess that Viacom will run out of their lawyers pocket money before Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 12 Aug 2010 @ 5:32am

This is why appeals need to be limited, and sometimes denied entirely. Otherwise we have courts needlessly bogged down in the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Sydnor, 12 Aug 2010 @ 7:04am

Mike, you once again misstate the law and the facts
Well, Mike, you have the substance wrong, and you have thus missed the interesting part of the story. As any first-year law student would know, the summary-judgment ruling in favor of YouTube DID NOT create a final appealable order.

Consequently, Viacom has done something telling here: They must have agreed to dismiss their case, pending the results of an appeal of the safe-harbor ruling.

That is highly unusual. I once advised a client to do that, but they wouldn't. In effect, this means that Viacom must have few or no doubts that Judge Stanton's reasoning will be rejected on appeal. I agree. Here is a short paper that explains why:

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.14-Grokster_Redux.pdf

In short, Judge Stanton's ruling is dead-wrong on the law for all the same reasons that the district-court decision in Grokster was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. --Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2020 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re:
  You lost, Tom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]