Veoh Once Again Beats UMG (After Going Out of Business) 229
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Veoh has once again beaten the record companies; in fact it has beaten them in every round, only to have been forced out of business by the attorneys fees it expended to do so. I guess that's the record companies' strategy to do an 'end around' the clear wording of the DMCA 'safe harbor': outspend them until they fold. Back in 2009 the lower court dismissed UMG's case (PDF) on the ground that Veoh was covered by the DMCA 'safe harbor' and had complied with takedown notices. The record companies of course appealed. And they of course lost. Then, after the Viacom v. YouTube decision by the 2nd Circuit, which ruled that there were factual issues as to some of the videos, they moved for rehearing in UMG v. Veoh. Now, in a 61-page decision (PDF), the 9th Circuit has once again ruled that the statute means what it says, and rejected each and every argument the record companies made. Sadly, though, it did not award attorneys fees."
Another such victory... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I am undone -- Pyrrhus of Epirus.
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the real-world precedent of don't mess with the record companies even if you have the law on your side.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's why Google bought Youtube. Without Google's pockets, video uploading or user-generated content sites in general would be in deep, deep trouble, and as common and popular as limewire, emule, TPB, etc.
Google needed another platform to sell advertisements, and it protected user-generated content sites in the process. Sometimes, things DO work out.
Re:US Law (Score:5, Insightful)
A civilized place, on the other hand, is a place that doesn't have assholes like you.
Re:US Law (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good as long as you know how to "determine" fairness and justice. US courts are set up in such a way to deliberately obfuscate the law.
Federal courts in the US are a mess. There are entire books worth of byzantine rules that even the lawyers have trouble understanding. To make matters worse, each of the federal districts has their own local rules as well (because every federal district court needs it's own rules for what font size motions should be in...).
Pro se parties are routinely discriminated against. Lawyers essentially have unlimited power to issue subpoenas; the US is one of the only countries that allows lawyers to do this with no oversight. Pro se parties cannot do this. The clerks of court will go out of their way to answer questions about the law to lawyers (again, even they can't keep track of all of the rules) but will refuse to answer any questions for pro se parties.
In addition, the salaries of lawyers are artificially inflated through the cartel known as the bar. The amount of lawyers is artificially restricted by the state through economic rent seeking. Even offering your opinion on something related to the law can subject you to the imposition of violent force by the state on behalf of the bar (Free speech doesn't apply to non-lawyers). Since judges are members of this cartel, and judges are lawyers themselves, they will never rule such a thing illegal even if it is.
If that doesn't get you, case law will. Lawyers have access to tools like LexisNexus which allow them to figure out WHAT the case law is and what cases have been overturned and such. The average person can't afford that and has to resort to inferior tools.
It is criminal to have a system where someone with millions of dollars can simply use the state and its courts as a means to steal money from people simply because they can't afford to fight it. It is criminal to have a system where shysters can issue one subpoena after another without needing any sort of approval. It is criminal to have a system where someone is subject to violence because they offered legal advice to the less fortunate simply because they haven't paid money into the bar racket.
As far as I'm concerned, US Courts no longer have any legitimacy. They are a joke and should be treated as such. So help me if I'm called for jury slavery because I would be the juror from hell.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the U.S. has a legal system and the word justice is nowhere to be found. This way of winning cases is the norm not the exception. The powerful and wealthy can always prevail because they can exhaust the financial resources of almost any citizen and any small company. Justice... my ass! For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!
That word doesn't mean what you think it means (Score:5, Insightful)
America, on the other hand, was not the formalization of the boundaries of ancient tribes. Instead, Americans were united by certain IDEALS. (Ideals they often don't live up to, but ideals nonetheless.) Rather, people came to America for the promise of individual liberty and the opportunity that implies. In America, you were free to practice whatever religion you wanted, and free to succeed on your own merits. A "low class" store clerk born in a log cabin could become president. In other countries, being born low class meant you stayed low class your entire life.
Does that imply that America is better? Not necesarily. Critics will point first to slavery, which once existed in the US. How does that square with a nation "founded on the proposition that all men are created equal"? It doesn't, and that, my friend, is the whole point of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism tells us that BECAUSE the country was founded on these ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality, we had better make great effort to live up to those ideals. It doesn't mean that we do, it means that our founding documents demand that we SHOULD.
Re:US Law (Score:4, Insightful)
The adversarial system benefits lawyers.
Lawyers become politicians.
Therefore, nothing will change.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the record companies will simply alter a few words in the same arguments that made the judges waste time before, enough to encourage the court to re-evaluate the suit's merits again, and again, and again. A great deal of software patent law works the same way, as does movie and record company "SLAPP" or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". This case is nowhere near enough to help eliminate such abuses precisely because legal fees were not awarded to the victor, who is now bankrupt. This has demonstrated that such ill-founded lawsuits can achieve business goals, even when they lose.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you dense? If the recourse is that costly, it's not really a recourse.
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this being modded as funny?
That is the nature of government; it legitimizes violence as a means of keeping those who are part of it in power. This is just as true now as it was when aging tribal leaders turned to divine right and mysticism to stay dominant after their physical strength was gone. It is a lie to permit the few and the weak to rule over the many. Washington indeed wants you to be a big thief, which is to say part of the club that is permitted to steal and grants that privilege to others who play along. This describes our court system perfectly. To see this, just ask why Veoh didn't simply carry on as normal. Ask why they would destroy themselves financially giving money to a bunch of lawyers and such? What could compel them to commit suicide like that?
The answer is violence; it is violence that most everyone here worships as good and necessary. Had Veoh ignored the 'requested' summons, had they simply dismissed and recycled the ever more threatening letters, eventually, the owners of the company would have had a visit from some guy in a nice black suit. He would be very morose yet it would be made clear that some guys with guns and rape rooms and access to their bank accounts were getting very very annoyed at being ignored. Soon after that Veoh would find many of its assets stolen. Should the company leadership continue to ignore these savage threats and somehow continue operations, eventually guys in matching costumes would break into their homes, shoot their pets more likely than not, and kidnap them, and lock them in cages with various tortured individuals on either side of the bars.
This isn't some obscure flaw in a sound design. It is the very heart of statism: that moral rules have exceptions and that violence against innocent people is right when done by certain people.