Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Google Youtube Your Rights Online

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy 260

Posted by timothy
from the manufacturing-outrage dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "The Recording Industry Association of America voiced its opposition to the recent decision in the YouTube-Viacom copyright infringement case, stating that 'the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.' Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post, 'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy

Comments Filter:
  • Duh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:49PM (#32767220)

    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

    YES, THAT'S THE POINT. If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime. The Service providers don't know jack about who owns what, and is not their responsibility.

  • Too Fucking Bad (Score:2, Informative)

    by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:51PM (#32767236)

    Typical RIAA, whining about when the Law doesn't give them what they want...

    Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:01PM (#32767350)

    "their".

  • translation: (Score:2, Informative)

    by CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:12PM (#32767434)

    "We (The RIAA) were hoping to sue the service providers in addition to suing the end-user for making the illegal downloads. Waaah! Its not fair that you won't let us sue".

  • by Thinboy00 (1190815) <thinboy00 AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:29PM (#32767594) Journal

    Actually, putbacks are legally binding [wikipedia.org] (see last two items).

  • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Informative)

    by BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @11:21PM (#32768430)

    The DMCA makes it legal UNTIL a takedown notice is issued.

    The DMCA does not make the exchange legal or illegal; rather, it provides a mechanism that allows ISPs to host user-uploaded content without liability for copyright infringement, provided the procedures are followed with respect to takedown notices. A person who makes infringing copies is still liable for making those copies, regardless of whether the copies are uploaded to an ISP, sold on the street, etc. Of course, not all copies are infringing (though the RIAA would probably disagree with this last statement).

  • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Looce (1062620) * on Thursday July 01, 2010 @11:29PM (#32768492) Journal

    Just for future reference,

    33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD [newegg.com], is 633,600 GiB.

    633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.

    The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.

    For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt [brillig.com], which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!

  • by DRJlaw (946416) on Friday July 02, 2010 @12:41AM (#32768888)

    I may be picking nits, but the DMCA makes NO specifications at all about what a company must or mustn't to when it receives a takedown notice. If I'm hosting a video which is clearly fair use, I don't have to take it down because I receive a takedown. It's just legally safer that way.

    You're not picking nits -- you're so technically right that you're practically wrong.

    The safe harbor only exists if "[the service provider] upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." 17 USC 512(c)(1)(C).

    You don't have to take advantage of the safe harbor provision. But if you don't, the copyright owner can bleed you dry. And don't think that corporate IP attorneys don't recognize that fact.

    If you follow the DMCA, you can be sued. However, you can at worst wind up the trial stage with limited discovery and a summary judgment. The copyright owner faces a real challenge piercing the safe harbor -- as shown by the Viacom decision. You have no incentive to settle for any amount greater than the cost of defending yourself to this early conclusion, if you're inclined to settle at all.

    If you do not follow the DMCA, you can be sued. Worse yet, even if you've decided that the video is fair use, you cannot limit discovery, and you are virtually certain to be unable to use summary judgment to avoid a trial on the merits. Fair use is a fact-based balancing test. Summary judgment can only be used where there is no reasonable factual dispute. If there's any resonable question of infringement instead of dair use, you're on your way to a trial and bench ruling or jury verdict. Also, unless the judge permits you to bifurcate issues like damages and willfulness, you're defending the whole enchilada at the same time. Infringement, damages, and enhancement. Your rational settlement number just became the costs of a complete defense, and a risk-of-loss-adjusted-number under at least one theory of copyright liability. Even worse, there's something to be said for the Vlad-the-Impaler logic of running someone through with their own legal costs. Think of SCO (acknowledging that they were, at first, the copyright aggressor), or a pre-Google YouTube running on venture capital without the shield of the safe harbor.

    The first route is a cost you don't need. The second route is a cost you cannot afford.

  • by Aeternitas827 (1256210) on Friday July 02, 2010 @02:13AM (#32769372)
    United States Constitution, Article III, Section 1:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    And, United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The italicized bits are rather important. Section 1, creates SCOTUS, and gives Congress authority to create the lesser courts; Section 2 spells out what that authority is; the structure of the sentence is a little bit odd, but it is clear that their authority applies to laws enacted by Congress and deciding if they may conflict with the constitution. If they decide there is a conflict, the law cannot stand as written.

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...