For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Tuesday, 13 March 2007

YouTube sued

It has finally happened. Reuters reports that Viacom has sued YouTube in the US for $1billion for copyright infringement. Said Viacom:
"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site…Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws".
The IPKat says that there’s clearly primary infringement going on by the uploaders. The question is, can YouTube be made secondarily liable? If what Viacom says is correct, and the business model does rely on facilitating infringement then things look pretty grim for YouTube (unless they come up before a court that wants to limit the affect of the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision). However, it’s hard to comment on the business model without having access to information which, at this stage, presumably remains confidential to YouTube. One way out of Grokster’s pull of gravity might be for any court to note that YouTube has changed hands since it was set up, and so the original business model may not remain relevant.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Isn't Youtube in a fundamentally different position to Grokster as it is not a peer to peer service, but actually allows uploading (and obviously subsequent downloading by internet users) of copyright materials onto its servers?

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':