By Larry Downes on December 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The copyright war just isn’t dramatic enough to warrant a good novel, let alone a big movie deal.
Consider a few recent stories from the on-going battle between content owners and consumers:
* In October, sources reported to CNET’s Greg Sandoval that part of the document exchange between Viacom and YouTube in the on-going $1.1 billion infringement case revealed evidence that YouTube management knew about rampant uploading of copyrighted film and TV clips. Worse, the source indicated that there was also evidence that YouTube employees were among those uploading unauthorized material. (A YouTube spokesman responded that Sandoval’s characterizations were “wrong, misleading, or lack important context.”)
* A few weeks ago, the FBI made an arrest in the case involving a pre-release version of the “Wolverine” movie that made it online back in April, a version that was watched over 4 million times. A Bronx man is alleged to have used file-sharing network Megaupload.com under one of his online aliases, which include ‘theSkilled1’ and ‘SkillyGilly.’
Sounds pretty exciting, doesn’t it?
Wrong.
In the Wolverine case, Sandoval reported a few days later that the man accused of uploading the stolen film, Gilberto Sanchez, had purchased a DVD “from a Korean guy on the street for five bucks. Then I uploaded it.” In other words, Sanchez apparently has nothing to do with the real crime—that is, whoever inside the industry managed to steal the pre-release version of the film and put it in circulation in the first place. The real case may have gone cold.
And Viacom’s potential smoking gun was greatly undermined yesterday when it was revealed the company asked the judge in the case for permission to remove 250 of its claims of infringement. Why? Well, at least 100 of the removed claims involved clips that had been intentionally uploaded to YouTube by Viacom employees. It turns out that Viacom and other content owners regularly used and continue to use YouTube to promote their programming by uploading clips and hoping they go viral. (According to a YouTube lawyer who attended last month’s Supernova conference in San Francisco, those uploads are often done anonymously to mask the fact that the clip is a marketing effort.)
Media companies needn’t be so apocalyptic in their rhetoric if not their strategy when it comes to unauthorized uses, especially those (like clips and short excerpts) that inherently promote their products.
For more, see "Two Smoking Guns and a Cold Case."
Comments
pixlem1 December 31, 2009 at 7:53 am
PermalinkIt's pretty shocking that you'd so distort the YouTube/Viacom result. Of more than 65,000 clips, 200 were retracted. And, of course, Grokster had the bible on it. But the fact that a money-laundering operation also sells candy doesn't keep it from being illegal any more than a site overwhelming devoted to making money on copyright infringement may also have a little legitmate stuff. That's the common sense rule in Grokster and comports with the law everywhere else. Viacom's not claiming YouTube should be perfect but that doesn't excuse blatant copyright infringement.
If YouTube management uploaded -or knew about copyright infringement, there is, quite properly, no DMCA defense. It's hard to see how retraction of less than 1% of the clips does anything other than strengthen the claim as to all the rest.
Darren February 17, 2010 at 6:43 am
PermalinkThe blatant overuse of upload/download sites seems in parallel with the rhetoric being thrown around. Let viacom sue. Let Youtube throw money into the streets. Have we reached a point where, in our digital age, the cusp of advertising is slowly saturating every medium possible? None of this is surprising, but what does surprise me is that these companies cry foul in a seemingly benign form of kill or be killed type of diplomacy. Enterprising individuals will always find a way around. Drop the lawsuits, stop wasting the courts time and accept what is given.
Add new comment