RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy 260
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.'"
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies. If I upload an infringing video and Viacom complains, then youtube is expected to honor the request. BUT if I then file a motion to reinstate the video because it doesn't violate copyright (for example it's me singing my own song), Youtube is supposed to restore the video immediately.
From that point forward youtube is now held blameless as a neutral party. They followed the rules. Why RIAA would want youtube to be punished makes no logical sense, except in the mind of a bunch of greedy tyrants. I guess RIAA doesn't want youtube restoring videos of Me singing my own song..... they want all music production to be in *their* hands, not in the People's hands.
RIAA are really fighting a stupid match here (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, on the surface it sounds good for the RIAA being able to hold a gun to YouTube's head every time an infringing video is posted. But what would that in practice mean? It would mean that any video that hasn't been reviewed and approved by YouTube would be a liability - and knowing the RIAA, a big one. It'd basically be a license for the RIAA to print money off YouTube, since it's highly unlikely they could keep everything away. They could just continue to make increasingly more impossible standards of screening and cooperation for YouTube to fail.
I think if this ever gets to the Supreme court, Viacom will be handed a slapdown so big their head will be spinning for years so I almost hope they do. Imagine if every comment here had to pass through an editor in case it contained copyright text of Scientologists or whatnot, it'd be the death of all discussion forums. There's no way the Supreme Court would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over every site operator like that, they're more than smart enough to figure out their guideline would be the guideline for all copyrighted content.
Any bets on what serial killer YouTube will be likened to?
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"You must not have gotten the memo on the latest version of ACTA... oh right, it's secret. Well, about that..." - RIAA
FTFY
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>RIAA sits back and collects the profit while ISPs pay the costs
Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile..... just like I smiled when Saddam Hussein was terminated. For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing. Such as when Emperor Nero died.
The courts don't make policy! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The courts' job isn't to make policy, it's to interpret and apply it! I'm tired of people criticizing court decisions because the outcome doesn't favor the party you're most sympathetic to. A decision is a good decision if it's consistent with the law, precedence, and is fairly and evenly applied.
RIAA, you want the law to say something other than what it does? Buy a senator, God knows you have enough money.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the Viacom vs YouTube ruling was fair, especially considering internal memos admitted that the "illegal uploading" was done by Viacom themselves.
I thought not even the RIAA could justify Viacom's side of this case.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think in this case the court did exactly what congress intended, and it is constitutional. Service providers like YouTube cannot be liable for posted content and stay solvent, so to allow the business to grow they made it so. No one is going to suffer irreparable damage by having a video pulled for a free posting service, so there is no reason not to have the service provider pulled. A user can also post it on their own dime or use another service, or fight the right to have it posted. Stakeholders are not going suffer irrevocable harm by having unlicensed content up for a short while, so there we go.
The only thing I would like to see are stiff penalties for parties who use the DMCA to harrass people, but this is no different from SLAPP laws, which have helped some, but there is still a huge problem with big corporation limited free speech of the average person.