Stunned film, music sectors react to Veoh decision
In the cafes along Sunset Boulevard and the high-rises on Fifth Avenue, executives and lawyers at powerful entertainment conglomerates were talking about Veoh on Tuesday morning.
The rooftop pool of The Standard Hotel in Los Angeles.
(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET)They were not joyful discussions. Copyright owners in the film and music sectors were stunned Monday by the news that U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that Veoh, an online-video service, is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe-harbor provision and cannot be held liable for acts of copyright infringement committed by users. This was the most significant court victory that the tech sector has won against copyright owners in some time.
Universal Music Group had filed suit against Veoh, but on Friday, the judge tossed the case out. Universal said it will file an appeal soon. While entertainment companies await the appeal, Matz's reading of the DMCA has shaken content producers. Two entertainment attorneys from Los Angeles who asked for anonymity said the ruling "disappointed" many in their industries and absolutely isn't good for Viacom or any other copyright owner. Viacom filed a copyright lawsuit against Google and its YouTube two years ago. Some attorneys believe that Veoh's case is very similar to Viacom's.
Matz's decision isn't binding, but if allowed to stand, it could influence other courts, legal experts said.
What has so spooked the entertainment industry is that Matz would require content creators to play a cat-and-mouse game with those that upload unauthorized copies of films, songs, music videos, and TV shows onto Web sites.
In order to have a piece of content removed from a site such as Veoh or YouTube, they must file what is commonly referred to as take-down notice. If they get one clip pulled, someone could conceivably post the same clip 30 seconds later, and a content owner would have to file yet another notice, says Chris Castle, an attorney and outspoken proponent of artist rights.
"According to some interpretations of this new law, copyright owners--from multinational corporations to independent songwriters--are required to stand at the ready on a 24-7 basis to police the Internet," Castle wrote on his blog. According to Castle, the ruling legitimizes the "catch me if you can" business models that he claims some companies create to avoid paying licensing fees.
Companies such as YouTube and Veoh have filtering technologies in place that help keep infringing materials off the site, and Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has always said there isn't any way for such services to determine what content is infringing and what isn't. The copyright owners, according to EFF, are in the best position to do that.
As for the content-filtering technologies, they are totally foolproof. In a story in All Things Digital on Tuesday, the blog reported that Viacom had to pay staff to "work through the night on Sunday" to provide YouTube with "reference files" to help remove unauthorized clips from the Video Music Awards. One would go down, and more would show up.
"This is not the way forward for legitimate companies to come together with sustainable innovation in the digital society," Castle wrote.
That's an important point because despite claims by some on the copyright side, this isn't a situation where YouTube is sitting back while users commit piracy on its site. For two years, the company has implemented filtering technologies and created systems designed to help keep pirated material off of its site. Veoh had its own systems in place.
There's no arguing that YouTube was once more defiant and less interested in appeasing content creators than it is now. For the past couple of years, Google, which bought YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion, has wooed the film and music industries, and has signed all but one of the four major record labels and such studios as Disney, Sony Pictures, CBS (publisher of CNET News), and MGM.
Those antipiracy systems were an olive branch welcomed by content producers, but that won't cure all the ills. According to Doug Lichtman, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and an attorney working for Viacom, many of the problems will be solved in the boardroom and not the courtroom.
"The most important antipiracy efforts under way these days aren't cases but (rather) business initiatives like Hulu and Redbox," Lichtman said, "where the content community is struggling to figure out how to give consumers what they want, in forms they want, and at reasonable prices."
If that's the case, though, then why don't Google and Viacom send their attorneys home and cut a business deal whereby everyone makes money? Maybe it will still happen.
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. 
Then see what your parasitic life view gets you.
Who's really the parasite? Supporters have shown time and again that they are more than willing to pay for content when its not tied down with unnecessary restriction. Artists have shown that business models are absolutely possible and in fact, even more lucrative, when piracy is not only ignored, but embraced.
You're perspective is extremely limited. You're point of view rejects real world proof that piracy isn't a problem when embraced properly and that it can make even more money for those willing to not waste time fighting it, but to harness it.
You're living in the past.
Or is that a decision best left to Nancy Pelosi and whatever new government body of Anointed Ones will surely be needed to dictate how individuals' property is to be confiscated?
None. unless your author is an indie, big media will do that for him. All he has to do is sign away his rights.
There is a world of difference between infringment and creating tools that are handy and which can be used for infringment.
"This is not the way forward for legitimate companies to come together with sustainable innovation in the digital society," Castle wrote.
Yes, it's OUR way or we sue until it becomes our way.
If they quit trying to rip us off all the time, maybe we will stop ripping them off...Maybe.
What is intentional. It's duty of copyright owners to watch over their copyright, not taxpayers.
Think about it: why tax payers should pay twice? Once - for the content, second time for it's protection.
This is simply wrong.
"... independent songwriters ..."
ZOMG!!! they finally acknowledge existence of indies?
It's certainly not the right of youtube to earn money off the other's content, while they stand around say "Not Me! It's the users!" Nor is it the right of users to go slinging things around saying "catch me if you can" but BTW, I must have my "privacy" protected so you can't come after me.
You do pay for police who enforce laws that protect the rights of private citizens from the illegal taking of their goods.
AT&T makes money off of offering a service that people use to do illegal things. Does that mean AT&T makes money off of those illegal things? No. Its the exact same situation with YouTube.
Your entire argument and whole point of view fail tremendously when actually scrutinized for any merit.
You are right I do pay for protection. When my window was shot out the police said. "Would you like a report for insurance?" My window was worth far more than any 1 movie and any 1 song, or any 1 book.
So put into real world perspective, like my window the police have priorites and your "IP" isn't worth enough to bother with at the individual level.
Shoot out 100 windows or create a piracy factory (where you make a product, not just the tools that others may or may not use to do ther own priacy) and now you have something.
Hulu has SIGNIFICANTLY cut down on piracy, at least as far as TV shows go.
Don't ask me how I know. :)
It only took these rocket scientists about ten years to figure that out. And obviously, a lot of the rest of the industry has not done so yet.
The question of whether treating with pirates is good for business is irrelevant: it is not the place of a person who doesn't own a piece of property to tell its owner what is best suited for its disposition. Again, those who have such strong opinions as to the use of intellectual property, and such gluttonous appetites for it, should truly liberate themselves from the likes of Viacom, Microsoft, Sony et al and create or purchase their own properties, then go about the task of keeping them secure, or give them away as they expect others to do.
Why do IP rights owners so vigorously defend their propeties? Imagine if a burglar broke into your home, and if you failed to beat him or shoot him a judge could then decide that the burglar now owns your home, and any other squatter passing by can take refuge there as well. This ludicrous scenario represents the letter of much IP law.
Why do IP rights owners so vigorously attack aides and abettors? Imagine that a bank allowed your money to sit on a counter for a few days before moving it into the vault, and allowed anyone who passed by to help himself to a few dollars. When you complain (and you would), the bank claims innocence, saying that it didn't steal your property, other people did, and that it can't be held responsible, because that would be bad for business. This ludicrous scenario represents the argument that "content-sharing" websites put forth.
Property is property, decades of horrible legislative and judicial practices notwithstanding, and the unashamed lust for taking what belongs to others, for use as the takers see fit, is neither revolutionary nor creative: it is the oldest crime of humanity, and an act of destruction and violence.
As for the shooter, well his momma and his "reverend" swear up and down he was a nice boy about to get back in school, multiple prior violent felonies notwithstanding.
You would be closer if you used a library as an anology. I donate books all the time. I don't check the source of the book to see if it's a problem. The library doesn't check each book to ensure that they weren't plagerized. It's not actually the job of the library (You Tube etc.) to check each work individually for every nuance of potential infringment, plagerism, improper crediting of source etc. That's for the poor schmucks who are trying to hawk the work as their own, or as if they did have rights to it. You only need your library (youtube etc.) to step in if a known problem crops up.
In the argument against the bank analogy, the case is made in each scenario to explicitly blame the second party, and implicitly blame the third (with the first parties as victims). This makes the bank and the passerby responsible in the analogy, and, by logical extension, makes the site users and the site itself responsible in the Veoh case. Seen in this light it is obvious that the argument against the bank analogy does not protect Veoh, but instead implicates it. A perceived flaw in the analogy (my drawing a comparison between a second party in one scenario and a third party in the other) does not absolve third parties from blame in such cases. A blanket exemption, as argued for in the oversimplified disagreement with the bank analogy, cannot be given to third parties, because negligence or complicity on their parts is often extant. In fact, an entity's status as an "innocent" third party in such a case means that, by definition, said entity has no right to the property in question to begin with.
Furthermore, it is disingenuous for a site like Veoh to claim it has no knowledge of, or control over, what its users do. It is also disingenuous for such a site to claim it has no reason to expect piracy on its network. The site is not exempt from reasonable expectations of responsible and lawful behavior, and in light of the current cultural and legal environment (with widespread piracy and antagonism towards IP rights), negligence or complicity on the part of a site like Veoh, in matters of IP rights violations, is practically a given.
What of the argument that a video-sharing site is a neutral infrastructure, and cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users? Unlike a telephone network or highway system, which exist for many purposes and are subject to occasional criminal use, a video-sharing site like Veoh exists for one purpose, and is highly prone to abundant criminal use. This is an indisputable fact of contemporary life, and a website cannot claim ignorance of this.
In summation, a site like Veoh cannot allow IP rights violations, then claim innocence due to being a third party, due to ignorance, due to lack of control, or due to lack of responsibility.
Why does Amazon remove published materials that are proven to be plagiarized? Why does Wal-Mart remove consumer goods that are shown to be counterfeit? Why does Flickr remove images discovered to be copyrighted? In each of these examples, played out in the news in the last year (and all involving intellectual property), the businesses involved acknowledged their responsibility to police their own operations, lest they be accused of negligence or complicity. Sites like Veoh and YouTube are subject to the same rules and expectations, whether they, or their users, like it or not.
"The most important antipiracy efforts under way these days aren't cases but (rather) business initiatives like Hulu and Redbox," Lichtman said, "where the content community is struggling to figure out how to give consumers what they want, in forms they want, and at reasonable prices."
This is the most intelligent statement that I've heard regarding the piracy debate. Makes sense that it comes from someone who is not only an attorney for a content provider, but also a law professor. I take this as an indicator that the "content community" is turning the corner - letting go of tradition and panic, with the intent of evolving and moving forward.
- by jonarosen September 18, 2009 2:48 PM PDT
- Now, what I don't get, and alternately laugh-at, and just go *** about, is the whole video online thing. At least concerning music videos. MTV barely does any at all. BET and VH1 are VERY limited. And then take more international ones. I honestly listen to, and watch more foreign music and music videos than anything made in the US. If not for sites like Veoh, Dailymotion, YouTube and the like, I'd never know about artists like Jolin Tsai (chinese) or others. The video-sites give a service, and it's stupid and aggravating when Sony-Japan takes down videos for artists that I love citing the legal ******** (because come on, we all know it really is), when they don't give any other option for people who don't live there to find that music.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(31 Comments)