Veoh Wins Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Viacom-YouTube Next?

[Squirt]

A CBS NEWS STORY

No, this isn't the big one, but nonetheless an important precedent: A federal judge in San Jose ruled today that video-sharing site Veoh was not liable for copyrighted material uploaded to its site, dismissing an early 2006 case filed against it by Io Group, an adult video firm. The site pleaded its defense under the "safe harbor" provisions of DMCA copyright law, which meant it could be safe as long as it removed the infringing video when alerted by the copyright holder, which the judge said that Veoh was doing. Meanwhile Veoh's suit against Universal Music Group is still going on.

In the other higher profile case of Viacom (NYSE: VIA) vs YouTube, on similar grounds, Google (NSDQ: GOOG) quickly came out with a statement welcoming this new decision, reports WSJ, and affirming the legality of its own video-sharing service. "It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights...YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online," said YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine.

SAI points out a key distinction that the judge mentions, between this case and the original P2P music piracy cases: "Napster (NSDQ: NAPS) existed solely to provide the site and facilities for copyright infringement, and its control over its system was directly intertwined with its ability to control infringing activity by contrast, Veoh's right and ability to control its system does not equate to the right and ability to control infringing activity. Unlike Napster, there is no suggestion that Veoh aims to encourage copyright infringement on its system. And, there is no evidence that Veoh can control what content users choose to upload before it is uploaded...unlike Napster (whose index was comprised entirely of pirated material), Veoh's ability to control its index does not equate to an ability to identify and terminate infringing videos. For the most part, the files in question did not bear titles resembling plaintiff's works; and, Io did not provide Veoh with its titles to search."

HERE ARE THE FULL CASE DOCS

--------------------------------

So do you think tube sites will now use this as an excuse to keep posting, and hosting hours of our porn content and charging a membership fee to do so?

I think this is where monstercocktube.com, and other tubes, are in trouble. What do you think?

[Matt 26z]

The original thread is interesting to look back on. Let's see who had the right arguments...

Titan wants Veoh's ass on a plate
06-29-2006
http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...ad.php?t=17774

Looks like we have a winner...

Online service and content providers have limited copyright liability under the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.

I hope this goes to trial and isn't settled out of court. This is the first of the new video sites to get into hot water, so I'd like to see what happens.

I know a lot of you take an "either you are with the industry, or against us" stance on anything related to content theft, but my prediction is that Titan loses or it's settled out of court.

I'm not saying I support content theft, I just think this is what will happen.

[Squirt]

Yep you were right

The Titan lawsuit..... I don't like this. If Veoh did not honor remove requests then that is something different, but if none were submitted for each specific video then I don't think unmoderated user controlled services with good intentions should be held responsible.

Although Veoh wasn't really doing their job in the beginning and they used to have a snail mail policy to get content taken off.