Comments on: Viacom sued over Colbert parody on YouTube

EFF, others claim Viacom is misusing copyright law in forcing video-sharing site to take down parody of Comedy Central show.

[TheBikerWeb.com]

Thanks EFF

Protecting one's legal and just copyright is one thing. Quashing
free speech (such as parody) is another.

GO EFF!

[Dachi]

I agree

The EFF does not get nearly enough recognition for all the work it does to protect online freedoms.

[MarkBentley]

Not misuse

I don't consider it misuse of the law when Viacom makes demands (outside of court) when Viacom does not have the right to enforce those demands. Let YouTube consider its own rights and choose to concede or refuse. If YouTube gives up more rights than it needs to, then that's YouTube's fault, not Viacom's.

[mstrclark]

You Don't Understand DMCA

Viacom told YouTube to take down the clips via a DMCA take down request form, which the have to swear under perjury that they own the clips, they violate their copyright, and they must be removed. Under law, YouTube has to take down the requested content until a counter-notification (citing Section 512 of the DMCA) from the original poster is received.

By sending a DMCA take notice to YouTube for non-copyright violating request, Viacom broke the same law they were trying to enforce.

Check out NFL fumbles DMCA takedown battle from Ars Technica for more information. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070320-nfl-fumbles-dmca-takedown-battle-could-face-sanctions.html)

[internetdog]

Counter notice (put-up notice) rights

From another series of articles on the NFL takedown against a college professor who posted the copyright notice from the Super Bowl broadcast, it appears that a properly filed counter notice does NOT require that YouTube agree with the notice. They have to take it as a good faith assertion from the poster, have no alternative under the DCMA not to put it back up (unless it independently violates their own Terms and Conditions), and are still protected from liability once the counter notice has been filed.

In addition, if Viacom simply repeats the takedown notice instead of going to court, that is itself a violation of the DCMA, in that it is a false representation by Viacom.

The college professor in the NFL case is also an attorney with the EFF and the founder of the ChillingEffects website.

[kyle172]

GO EFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank god for the EFF they have really ment alot to digital rights and freedom