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.
YouTube sued YouTube sued Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. 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?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.