« Message from Chair Judith B. Prowda | Main | Report on the ABA Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries –Part I: “From Music, Film and Art to Motorcycles and Other Sports: Hot Issues and Disputes in Entertainment, Art and Sports Licensing Deals” »

Report on the ABA Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries –Part II: “Clash of the Titans: Viacom v. YouTube – Will Copyright Law Undo Goggle’s Internet Juggernaut?”

By Monica Pa

This panel was held on Friday, August 6, 2010 at the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco.
The panel included Jennifer Golinveaux, Marc Greenberg, and Jennifer Seibly and was moderated by David Given.

This panel raised some unique points about this heavily discussed litigation, including several interesting background facts surrounding this case. Even before the litigation was filed, there was a fair amount of trash talk by Viacom. When YouTube debuted, Viacom issued negative press about YouTube’s business model. Viacom has a lock on the “youth-market” as far as cable TV content (it owns MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon). Billions of dollars every year are earned in licensing fees and advertising revenue from programs on these channels. Viacom was appropriately concerned about YouTube, given that a significant percent of the youth market was trending towards turning to the Internet for media consumption. Google purchased YouTube in 2006, one year after YouTube’s public launch, for 1.65 billion dollars (a tremendous price for a company that has never made a profit), and Viacom filed suit shortly thereafter in March 2007.

Viacom’s lawsuit claimed that YouTube and Google were guilty of massive copyright infringement. The initial reaction was that, given the results in Napster and Grokster, this should be a slam dunk case for copyright infringement. Viacom’s complaint anticipated many of the defenses that YouTube would raise under the DMCA, accused YouTube of willful copyright infringement (which allows for enhanced statutory damages), and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

At the close of discovery and summary judgment briefing, there were supposedly “smoking gun” documents leaked to the media. Notably, the first source of that leak was a former subsidiary of Viacom (CBS.com), which suggested that there was evidence adduced at discovery extremely detrimental to YouTube’s defenses, including documents showing the state of YouTube’s knowledge and encouragement of infringing activities.

Turning to the merits of the decision, Professor Marc Greenberg from Golden Gate University Law School pointed out that this case turned on the straight forward issue of how to interpret the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, which provides that the content owner must give notice to the ISP identifying where on the website the infringing materials is located, and then the ISP must investigate this claim and perhaps take it down. The district court’s decision carefully parsed the DMCA provisions and legislative history, focusing on the question of whether it was sufficient for the content creator to provide only general notice to the ISP of a problem.

The court held that general notice is not sufficient; instead, the DMCA requires the content owner to provide specific information about infringements of particular individual items. This is a burden shifting issue - who should, in the first instance, be required to identify infringing works and police infringement. The court makes clear that the DMCA places the burden on the copyright holder to identify the infringing activity.

The panel discussed the fact that the more significant issue, and what the appeal may hang on, is the availability of the statutory exception for a “representative list,” which provides that, if copyright owner can identify a representative class of infringing items, then the burden shifts to the ISP to take down similar instances of infringement. Specifically, the statute provides that “works” may be described representatively, so long as the content owner provides
“information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.” The very purpose of this exception is to relieve copyright owners of the need to specifically identify each and every infringement. The court found that merely giving a representative sampling of infringing content undermines the DMCA’s general requirement for content owners to identify the location of the infringing material. But, this undermines the fact that the apparent purpose of the statutory exception is to shift the burden to the ISP. As such, the district court’s construction and application of the “representative list” exception may be Viacom’s strongest argument on appeal.

The panel also discussed the decision in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 665 F. Supp.2d 1099 (C.D.Cal. 2009), with counsel for Veoh speaking on the panel. Veoh’s counsel pointed out that it is not easy for an ISP to identify what constitutes infringing content. For example, when a content owner says to take down unlawful copies of a music video, a broad sweep for videos containing a particular song may capture home videos with someone playing that song on the piano or kids dancing to that song. She argued that content owners are the ones in the best position to identify infringing content. You do not want ISPs guessing at what is infringing; this is not the case of “know it when you see it.”

She pointed out that in both UMG and Viacom, neither ISPs were ignoring infringement notices. As soon as they received a DMCA notice, they immediately took the infringing materials down. For example, when Viacom sent more than a hundred thousand DMCA infringement notices to YouTube on the eve of litigation, by the next business day, the majority of those allegedly infringing files had been taken down. She argued that this shows that the “take down” method actually works.

The panel also discussed the potential for a technological fix for these legal problems. Viacom argued that YouTube could have used filtering technology early on. Notably, Viacom’s infringement claim is predicated only on infringement occurring before YouTube enacted filtering technology. It’s unclear why Viacom would choose to limit liability for pre-filtering activity because the use of such technology is not relevant under the DMCA, which does not predicate the availability of safe harbor immunity on the use of filtering technology.

Early on, there was hash filtering software, which is a more precise but limited filtering system. It identifies any identical files on the system and disables them. But, all a user has to do to avoid this filter is to crop off one or two seconds at the end of the film clip. Veoh and YouTube employed more advanced and less precise “Audible Magic” fingerprinting filtering technology, which matches the “fingerprints” within a file with other files on the system. Thus, the file need not be identical to be captured by the filter. This is one of the most effective filtering software available right now.

These filtering fixes, however, are not without their issues. The EFF is vocal about over-filtering, especially since much non-infringing original content is being taken down without the ISP serving a DMCA counter-notice to the poster. Robust and broad filter technology takes away the opportunity to challenge a take down of allegedly infringing files, and also undermines the chance to consider fair use and other defenses.

As a final point, it bears observing that, when the DMCA was enacted in the late 90’s, there were no social networking sites (which is essentially how YouTube operates). It is extremely burdensome for content owners like Viacom, which generates thousands of hours of programming that results in thousands of infringing uploads on YouTube on a daily basis. The problem may be that legislation has not caught up with technological advances. The DMCA is just a poor fit to address user generated content on social networking sites. The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals may uphold this decision, or perhaps overturn the “representative sampling” holding, but the panel expects some language in the decision asking Congress to revisit the “take down” structure in the DMCA.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 15, 2010 8:32 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Message from Chair Judith B. Prowda.

The next post in this blog is Report on the ABA Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries –Part I: “From Music, Film and Art to Motorcycles and Other Sports: Hot Issues and Disputes in Entertainment, Art and Sports Licensing Deals”.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.