NBC joins Viacom in suit against Google ~ New class action

NBC and Viacom are backing Los Angeles newsman Robert Tur, who filed suit against YouTube in July for letting users post his video of trucker Reginald Denny being beaten during riots in Los Angeles in 1992.

"We are confident in our legal case, and more importantly in the tremendous benefit of giving creators a place to post and discuss their videos, whether it be an individual's family video or the BBC's decision to partner with us to host their content," YouTube's owner Google said on Monday in response to an AFP inquiry.

"We meet and exceed our responsibilities under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which balances an easy takedown process and provides complete safe harbor for hosts such as YouTube."

The Viacom-NBC alliance, revealed in a US district court filing in California on Friday came as YouTube was hit with a class-action copyright violation suit filed by English football's Premier League in New York State.

The league's suit was filed on behalf of copyright owners "whose works were reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, performed or otherwise transmitted or disseminated on youtube.com without authorization," according to court paperwork.

In March, US media giant Viacom launched a billion-dollar (736 million euro) lawsuit against YouTube, accusing it of illegally showing clips from its television shows.

However, the jointly crafted brief filed in the Tur case marked the first time NBC took copyright concerns about YouTube to court.

NBC and YouTube have a "strategic partnership" launched in June of last year and depict themselves as partners in efforts to devise ways for YouTube to protect copyrights of film and television show owners.

NBC and Viacom are out to back Tur's position in a potentially precedent-setting court case in which a "little guy" is up against Internet giant Google's vast financial and legal resources. FULL STORY

--------

One of the best quotes, in part of the article not posted here:

"YouTube incorrectly contends that the DMCA permits it to avoid any responsibility for the content on its commercial website and completely shift the burden to content owners to discover and notify it of infringements," Frackman wrote in the brief.

"In the meantime, the presence of the infringing content draws users to the YouTube website, and in turn generates revenue for YouTube," he added.

"Regardless of the precise scope intended by Congress in enacting the DMCA, it certainly did not intend that the statute be used to escape liability for the commercial activities of the nature engaged in by YouTube."

I LOVE THIS! I would be so happy if the onus was on the publisher of the content, not the copyright holder. All of these torrents stealing content, etc. would be so much easier to get your content off or put them out of business.

Your thoughts? Is this gonna be as big as I think it is?

Quote:

---

giving creators a place to post and discuss their videos

---

:morning:

What do you think is going to happen HS?

I'm thinking the DCMA will be changed. It has to. Now it's a legal free for all and until copyright holders troll ALL OF THE NET everyone stealing their stuff makes a profit.

What are your thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I'm thinking the DCMA will be changed. It has to. Now it's a legal free for all and until copyright holders troll ALL OF THE NET everyone stealing their stuff makes a profit.

---

The solution is not for user driven websites to pay though the nose each time one of their users commits infringement. Exactly where does the actual user get into trouble here?... or do they just get to go around destroying website after website?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

The solution is not for user driven websites to pay though the nose each time one of their users commits infringement. Exactly where does the actual user get into trouble here?... or do they just get to go around destroying website after website?

---

The user should be held accountable, as should the distributor of the copyright material.

The way it is now is like having a TV or radio station broadcasting whatever movies/music they want around the world, not paying anyone for the movies, and reaping massive profits from the content of others.

As porn producers we have to prove a model is over 18 via 2257

We publishers should have to prove in advance that they have permission to publish content from the copyright holder. Is that to much to ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

...The user should be held accountable, as should the distributor of the copyright material...

---

If you forced the service provider (distributor) to prescreen every posting for copyright violation, then the service would be nearly worthless for any time-sensitive newsworthy item. Can you imagine how long it would take each posting to appear. Also consider additional expense involved in paying the screeners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

publishers should have to prove in advance that they have permission to publish content from the copyright holder. Is that to much to ask?

---

Give me just one example of how that could be done online and actually work.

Imagine you are Flikr and someone uploads a scenery photo. It looks professional. You can't identify the photo, and you don't know who this person is that uploaded it. Exactly what are you going to do that ensures there isn't a copyright violation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fister

If you forced the service provider (distributor) to prescreen every posting for copyright violation, then the service would be nearly worthless for any time-sensitive newsworthy item. Can you imagine how long it would take each posting to appear. Also consider additional expense involved in paying the screeners?

---

RSS feeds direct from the news source post instantly as would their video feeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Give me just one example of how that could be done online and actually work.

Imagine you are Flikr and someone uploads a scenery photo. It looks professional. You can't identify the photo, and you don't know who this person is that uploaded it. Exactly what are you going to do that ensures there isn't a copyright violation?

---

Right now NOTHING is being done, and nobody feels they are responsible, so I could give you ANY answer and it would be better then what we currently have, nothing.

Right now the copyright holder has to file a DCRM and wait for a response, if they get one, from the site distributing the content. The person stealing the content and posting it doesn't have to fill anything out, the person distributing the content has no due dilligence. It's pretty obvious that, under the current system, everyone wins but the copyright holder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Right now NOTHING is being done, and nobody feels they are responsible, so I could give you ANY answer and it would be better then what we currently have, nothing.

---

Give me your best solution.

While certainly not perfect, here's mine.... These sites are making profits between the time the content is uploaded and removed. I would propose that sites track advertising revenue connected to each piece of content. Then the two sides can discuss how that is divided up.

That however does not address the suits where copyright holders claim incredible amounts of damage. Pornkings is the perfect example. A couple thousand pics and they lose their entire company. That sort of thing must be put to a stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Give me your best solution.

---

I'll have to really think about it. Off the top of my head I'd say a system where the person submitting the contents identity is verified. Perhaps something where a person who uploads copyritten content is banned from the site after a first 3 offenses. Remember Rapidshare, Veoh, etc etc don't ban repeat offenders, they adore them ;)

Perhaps a registrar system where sites with repeat DCRMA offenses have the domain seized. In any other industries repeat offenses brings fines, loss of license, loss of business.

Maybe a system where copyright holders register, get an ID number and have to submit that ID number to sites as part of the submission process.

Unfortunately right now site owners feel they have no responsibility and are getting sued left and right, and losing their businesses.

I really think this suit against YouTube can change the laws and make sites more accountable for the massive money they make off other peoples hard ass work.