The EFF has reported that 4000 DMCA takedown notices have been sent to YouTube on the basis of copyright infringement related to videos containing footage and content related to the Church of Scientology. YouTube responded by suspended a substantial number of user accounts.
YouTube users have responded with their own DMCA counter-notices which means that some of the suspended content is now available again on YouTube.
It will be interesting to see what the next step of the American Rights of Counsel (the mysterious entity acting in this case) would be. CyberPanda is concerned about the liberal use of the DMCA takedown notices by the Church of Scientology and its impact on free speech.
Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DMCA. Show all posts
28 August 2008
Good news for YouTube?
CyberPanda has been silent for a few days after taking some much needed holiday!!! But it is back on form and catching up with the various legal developments in cyberspace since last week. And boy are there many!! Cyberspace never stops surprising, evolving and posing new, interesting and controversial questions and this is shown by the flurry of cases that have popped up since last week.
One case that has caught the attention of CyberPanda is the decision by the federal court in California in the case of IO Group Inc v Veoh Networks. The lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Defendant, a online video sharing website, was infringing its copyright as videos of IO Group were being uploaded on the website of the Defendant without the authorisation of the rights owner.
The judge ruled that the Defendant was not infringing the copyright of the Plaintiffs and that the former was protected by the safe harbour provisions contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge also took into account the 'active steps' taken by the Defendant to reduce infringing acts and its 'diligent' work to keep unauthorised works off its website when reaching its decision.
This case is of particular interest as it is very much reminiscent of the ongoing lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube. Although this case can not serve as a precedent in the latter case which will be heard in a federal district court in New York, it may still have some impact on the ensuing ruling in the lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube. It is also important not to over-inflate the impact of this ruling which was very much decided on the precise facts of the case. Viacom`s lawyers will no doubt run an argument along the lines that the Google/Viacom case can be factually distinguished from the IO Group case and as such the courts should not consider the ruling in that case when deciding their case. It will be interesting to see whether this argument will work in court and the impact of this ruling in the Viacom/Google case.
One case that has caught the attention of CyberPanda is the decision by the federal court in California in the case of IO Group Inc v Veoh Networks. The lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Defendant, a online video sharing website, was infringing its copyright as videos of IO Group were being uploaded on the website of the Defendant without the authorisation of the rights owner.
The judge ruled that the Defendant was not infringing the copyright of the Plaintiffs and that the former was protected by the safe harbour provisions contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge also took into account the 'active steps' taken by the Defendant to reduce infringing acts and its 'diligent' work to keep unauthorised works off its website when reaching its decision.
This case is of particular interest as it is very much reminiscent of the ongoing lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube. Although this case can not serve as a precedent in the latter case which will be heard in a federal district court in New York, it may still have some impact on the ensuing ruling in the lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube. It is also important not to over-inflate the impact of this ruling which was very much decided on the precise facts of the case. Viacom`s lawyers will no doubt run an argument along the lines that the Google/Viacom case can be factually distinguished from the IO Group case and as such the courts should not consider the ruling in that case when deciding their case. It will be interesting to see whether this argument will work in court and the impact of this ruling in the Viacom/Google case.
21 August 2008
The dancing baby and Prince
The courts in the US today have delivered the ruling in the case of Lenz v. Universal. The facts of the case are quite simple. The Plaintiff posted a home movie of a toddler dancing in a kitchen to a song by Prince entitled 'Let`s Go Crazy' on YouTube with the aim of sharing the video with her friends and relatives. Universal Music Corporation ('Universal'), the owner of the copyright in the song, sent a DMCA takedown notice to the user in question. The user contended that the use amounted to fair use and sued Universal on the grounds of misrepresentation under s. 512 the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ('DMCA') and tortious interference with her contract with YouTube.
Universal`s defence was that it had no obligation to consider whether or not the use by the use amounted to 'fair use' before sending the notice.
The main question which the Courts had to answer was whether 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) required a copyright owner to consider the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith belief that 'use of the material in the manner complained of, is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.'
The courts rejected the defence of Universal and ruled that copyright owners need to determine whether or not the use in question is fair use, before sending a take down notice. This is because the DMCA requires copyright owners to act in 'good faith belief that the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.' Hence to do this, the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.
This ruling is one that is grounded in logic and correct application of the legal principles as otherwise copyright owners can send takedown notices even in cases where the use in question does not infringe their copyright.
Universal`s defence was that it had no obligation to consider whether or not the use by the use amounted to 'fair use' before sending the notice.
The main question which the Courts had to answer was whether 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) required a copyright owner to consider the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith belief that 'use of the material in the manner complained of, is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.'
The courts rejected the defence of Universal and ruled that copyright owners need to determine whether or not the use in question is fair use, before sending a take down notice. This is because the DMCA requires copyright owners to act in 'good faith belief that the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.' Hence to do this, the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.
This ruling is one that is grounded in logic and correct application of the legal principles as otherwise copyright owners can send takedown notices even in cases where the use in question does not infringe their copyright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
