September 14, 2009 12:47 PM PDT

Veoh wins copyright case; YouTube wins, too?

by Greg Sandoval
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 17 comments

Update 4:15 p.m.: To include comments from YouTube and Viacom.

A federal district court says Veoh, a Web video site that has come under legal fire from entertainment companies the past several years, is not liable for the copyright violations committed by its users, a decision that could help YouTube defend itself against Viacom's $1 billion copyright suit.

Universal Music Group, the largest of the four top record companies, accused Veoh of copyright violations in a lawsuit filed two years ago. But on Friday, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz granted Veoh's motion for summary judgment, and ruled that the company is protected against such claims by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The decision would have meant more for Veoh if the video site was still relevant. The company has fallen on hard times since YouTube and Hulu took control of most of the online-video sector. Veoh's legacy, however, could be that it helped to establish that Internet service providers aren't liable for crimes committed by users.

"This decision reaffirms the judicial consensus and what we've known all along: the DMCA protects services like YouTube," Zahavah Levine, YouTube's chief counsel said. "With the DMCA, Congress intended to foster online platforms like YouTube, which empower users, offer new distribution channels for content owners, and respect copyright."

To be sure, Universal Music will file an appeal to Matz's decision and the case likely still has a long way to go.

"The ruling today is wrong because it runs counter to established precedent and legislative intent and to the express language of the DMCA," Universal Music said in a statement. "Because of this and our commitment to protecting the rights of our artists and songwriters who deserve to be compensated for the use of their music, we will appeal this ruling immediately."

Martz's decision is not binding on other courts and it must be noted that the case was heard in the Ninth District while YouTube's court fight is in the Second District.

"Our case is in a different forum, not bound by the Veoh case," said Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, in a statement. "We remain confident that we will prevail on the law and the facts. Today's decision contradicts the consensus that sites and copyright owners share the responsibility to use readily available tools to minimize copyright infringements."

How YouTube may benefit
YouTube and Google could be the big winner in all of this, said Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Viacom accused YouTube of infringing its copyright in a lawsuit filed in March 2007.

"Veoh's policies are very similar to YouTube's," von Lohmann said. "The judge gave Veoh a clean bill of health. I think the court in New York (where the Viacom-YouTube case is being heard) is going to take this ruling very seriously. The facts are very, very close."

In Martz's decision, he noted that this was not the first time a court has ruled that Veoh is covered by the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision.

"On August 27, 2008, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd, sitting in the Northern District of California, wrote that the court does not find that the DMCA was intended to have Veoh shoulder the entire burden of policing third-party copyrights on its Web site (at the cost of losing its business if it cannot)," Martz wrote in his decision.

"Rather, the issue is whether Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with copyright infringement that takes place. The record presented demonstrates that, far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its Web site, and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its Web site. In sum, Veoh has met its burden in establishing its entitlement to safe harbor for the alleged infringements here."

While the judge ruled against Universal Music group and delivered a blow to copyright owners, he also confirmed that such sites must take reasonable steps to stop infringement once they've been made aware of its existence on their sites.

The legal fight between Viacom and YouTube will likely go to trial sometime next year. Many observers thought that case would be the one to establish whether managers at YouTube and similar services would be required to police their sites. But YouTube vs. Viacom could be anticlimatic, according to von Lohmann.

"The ironic thing is that so much attention has been paid to the YouTube litigation," von Lohmann said. "But the law is actually being made in other cases because the YouTube case is turning into an eternal trench war. In the meantime, smaller companies like Veoh and Perfect 10 are defining the law. The courts have consistently given an interpretation (of the law) that has been in line with what Web 2.0 companies have been arguing."

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET.
Recent posts from Digital Media
China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
Time Warner Cable shows subscribers how to cut cord
Want to see Google's new phone on YouTube?
AT&T cuts Tiger Woods
Online holiday sales hit $27 billion
Amazon touts top products of 2009
Teen Muziic founder chastised by Vevo
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (17 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by dowell100 September 14, 2009 2:05 PM PDT
So, does that mean people who upload stuff will now be hounded and sued by the big media companies individually?
Reply to this comment
by BCF1968 September 16, 2009 9:48 AM PDT
If you are violating their copyrights why shouldn't you be sued? What is the point of copyright if everyone is allowed ot do anything they wanted with YOUR intellectual property without permission? trust me if you were actually talented enough to create something you would NOT like it being free distributed and you not getting paid.
by firedrakeseqoa September 14, 2009 2:32 PM PDT
haha that is great!!! seeing this types of company's push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. in the first place and now it coming back to hurt them.
Reply to this comment
by cube3 September 14, 2009 2:44 PM PDT
The amount of damage done by the DMCA is outrageous.
Reply to this comment
by toumei64 September 14, 2009 3:21 PM PDT
"So, does that mean people who upload stuff will now be hounded and sued by the big media companies individually?"

I hear filesharing mass-suits round two.
Reply to this comment
by Seaspray0 September 14, 2009 3:22 PM PDT
"Because of this and our commitment to protecting the rights of our artists and songwriters who deserve to be compensated for the use of their music..." Yes they deserve to be compensated for the use of their music and the music labels do a p*ss poor job of compensating them.
Reply to this comment
by Sausagebiscuit September 14, 2009 3:46 PM PDT
Hopefully Veoh will be able to collect legal fees from the Studio.
Reply to this comment
by suicidalsteve September 14, 2009 9:37 PM PDT
Iraq had WMDs, Afghanistan had bin Laden, Obama has 'change you can believe in', the TSA is for your protection, the check is in the mail, I promise I won't c*m in your mouth, and the DMCA is for there the composers.

Riiiiiiiight.

Even though we all know this is bull hockey, we still fall for them every time, and we haven't the intestinal fortitude to 'just say no'. We really do deserve what we get. The new mantra: Profit stream über alles!
Reply to this comment
by cp256 September 15, 2009 10:14 AM PDT
Right on Steve. We sheeple really are getting what we deserve these days. If the newspapers write it and the TV networks say it, then it must all be true, right?
by Renegade Knight September 16, 2009 7:51 AM PDT
Iraq did have WMD. Simple historical fact. The only thing you can question (actually you can question anything, but only a moron debates facts) is if they used them up in the Iran Iraq war or disposed of them another way.
by EvanSei September 14, 2009 9:40 PM PDT
this is good because I always go to you tube and listen to a song in it's entirety before buying it on iTunes,(which to the best of my knowledge is perfectly legal) this ensures I am getting a song I really want and not just 30 seconds of good and another 3 minutes of garbage. I just hope the posters don't start getting sued.
Reply to this comment
by cloudmatt September 15, 2009 4:53 AM PDT
@evansei
Wow and I thought I was audio jaded for saying I hated paying 20 dollars for one cd with one good song and 8 pieces of suck. Next year on iTunes "25cents for just the Hook"
by Renegade Knight September 16, 2009 7:53 AM PDT
Artists who like to sell music and even media companies who actually like selling music are starting to put videos on YouTube.

I've tired to buy music I found on YouTube but...Media hasn't yet caught up with all the outlets out there so I could not find my song for purchase. This only happens once in a while.
by BCF1968 September 16, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
"Artists who like to sell music and even media companies who actually like selling music are starting to put videos on YouTube. "

The point is though it's up to the ARTIST to put the video on Youtube not YOU. It's HIS song not YOURS. If for some reason the artist doesn't want his/her video on Youtube, you have ZERO right to put it there. I'm not sure what is so hard for people to get about that?
by LAMediaGuy September 15, 2009 3:09 PM PDT
More convergence less litigation...yeah Veoh.
Reply to this comment
by hiqutipie September 21, 2009 5:28 PM PDT
Finally ...A monster decision that benefits all internet users & not corporate greed...and Thanks to a low life site like Perfect 10 that will probably go out of business now like veoh...

As far as I know most people share their favorite music, videos, pictures with others not for financial gain and therefore its more of a free promotion of such...In todays world you're not just promoting it to millions of American users but billions of world users which opens up a whole new world of promotion...Try going on dailymotion and finding how many American country singers you find...You will be amazed and when you show them some they love it...
Reply to this comment
by JamesGTRS October 7, 2009 2:25 PM PDT
This is just like the time when I saw a guy shoot a person in the leg and stole his wallet. Smith & Wesson were charged with armed robbery because they provided him the gun.
Reply to this comment
(17 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Media topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right