YOUTUBE v .VIACOM

The Road to Youtube v. Viacom

Background Law:

• Reread § 512 (17 USC § 512) : Pay particular attention to sections (a)-(d) and (i), as they lay ground rules for limiting content providers' liability.
• Optional: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act], which provides an overview of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
• Read §107 (17 USC 107) on "Fair Use."
• Optional: A summary of copyright law if you feel like things are a bit fuzzy or if you have never enrolled in Copyright Law, etc.

Case Law:

• Read: Perfect 10 v. ccBill - This provides a clear description of what a "safe harbor" is and what a content provider needs to do in order to maintain such protection. This protection (§512), and the principle of Fair Use (§107), are key defenses put forth by the YouTubes out in Cyberland. Do you agree with 'safe harbors?' Did the court get it right with its definition of "reasonably implemented?"
• Read: MGM v. Grokster - This focuses on the "inducement theory," essentially making content providers liable for users' infringing acts due to the provider's encouragement of such infringement. This theory is the crux of Viacom's complaint. Do you agree with the elements of inducement as set forth by the Grokster Court? Should there be more?

YouTube v. Viacom:

• Please read the "Amended Complaint" to get the full gist of why the case came about, namely Viacom's claims.
• Optional: Read and browse about what is currently going on in the case, or the latest step that the courts have reached.

So Who Should Win?

• This case has yet to come to an end. But the many patrons throughout cyberworld and the blogisphere have plenty to say. So whose team are you on? YouTube? Viacom? Why? And before you sift through what is below, watch this.
  • Team YouTube:
    Here are some links to articles AND videos (since we are in the spirit of uploading videos and such) that come out on YouTube's side.
    • See Knight's August 29th Posting.
    • PCMag's Proponent of YouTube.
    • Are some of these arguments akin to the arguments tied to net neutrality? For a friendly refresher, watch/listen to these videos:
      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFPSRALTAJ8&feature=user
      and
      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bARJ3AmTsGw&feature=channel.
  • Team Viacom:
    • PCMag's Proponent of Viacom.
    • Read the following article by Professor Jane Ginsburg. It also provides a nice overview of what this is all about (in case you are still a bit confused).
    • Will international policy help Viacom? (Just read the first article.)
    • Mark Cuban also has a thing or two to say about this case, and he is clearly on Team Viacom. Also, he may have a point (at least maybe about the porn). Do you agree? Read the following excerpts from his weblog:
      • http://blogmaverick.com/2008/07/03/ruh-roh-porn-could-sink-youtube-in-viacom-case/
      and
      • http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/01/why-i-have-it-in-for-gootube-3/.

• So, after all of that, whose team are you on? Does this dispute call for reform to digital copyright law? Please read the following speech, paying particular attention the 6 changes that Gigi Sohn lists.
• And if you need a little help or advice, perhaps John Stewart and his cronies can help you out.