http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/
VIACOM TO IMMEDIATELY APPEAL YouTube/Google Copyright Infringement Case to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit!
It was expected. YouTube/Google were granted "Safe Harbor" protection through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 for anonymous users in the tens of millions that upload copyrighted content where content owners receive $0.00, but YouTube/Google take the money through an advertisement revenue stream built around it. In the case of YouTube/Google vs Viacom/Paramount Pictures, Judge Louis Stanton, of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), stated in his ruling that “When they (YouTube/Google) received specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they swiftly removed it."
I'm sorry. No they don't. They never do. The material can be downloaded as well. And it was apparent from Judge Stanton's assessment in his ruling which said "it is inconceivable that they (files on YouTube) are left exposed to be claimed as unprotected infringements"; that he didn't know (and probably still doesn't know) that these files can be downloaded at anytime, and are therefore unprotected infringements where YouTube have always knowingly allowed it. I have an artist, outside the United States, whose material is infringed in this manner and she doesn't have the resources to fight (at this time) because YouTube and Google are stealing her compensation through infringing her work under this "business model". She doesn't have the ability or staff to constantly contact this business to tell them to stop. And there are multiple other companies that do it to her as well.
CNBC's announcement (left) over the Viacom x YouTube case that came over the wire, and CNBC's stunning article of a government oversight hearing (right) that took place just before the judge rendered his verdict. (Content provided by CNBC directly, embedded with permission (*not* provided by YouTube/Google which have it illegally as of this writing and knowingly allow it))
The judge based his assessment on a case from 2006 (Veoh vs. Io Group) that claimed the safe harbor protection statute in the DMCA. In that case, adult videos were consistently uploaded for free by anonymous users. Veoh then created a business around the infringement, and the industry fractured, and then collapsed while it watched. Veoh, ironically, went out of business as other "YouTube porn clones" were created that do the same thing. Note that "safe harbor" is not fair use, nor does it fully protect an entity from liability of copyright infringement---this was stated in the Veoh summary judgment. Additionally, the judge in the Viacom vs YouTube case rejected a Supreme Court 2005 ruling in which a company known as Grokster were found guilty of infringing copyrights from uploaded content, and therefore were not protected by the "safe harbor" clause. Stanton never once called YouTube users that upload infringed content as "anonymous users" (which they all are), nor did he ever state that any user---as a "user"---can simply create a new account after the (bogus) "three strike" rule implemented on YouTube. In other words, three infringments and you're off the system. Make note that US Copyright Law says **each** violation, not three violations. Many of the facts in the case were ignored by this judge. His decision was simply partisan toward Google/YouTube and was negligent in considering what is happening to copyright owners, in the millions, all over the world, all at once, right at this moment---this second.
Viacom's released a statement saying they will appeal the ruling at once in The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit): "We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process. Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement – conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA.” There is no doubt another opinion on this copyright infringement case will be heard, with a higher probability in Viacom's favor (especially after reading the lack of judgment in the current district court's decision of what occurs on The Internet---it was without facts pertaining to law, while at the same time---unfortunately---more manipulated toward technological wizardry. Wizardry does not bypass copyrights which are a constitutional right, (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8)).
Under law, after a District Court's avenues are exhausted, the US Court of Appeals is the next step. Finally, the US Supreme Court can decide to hear the case either way. If there are constitutional issues, the US Supreme Court will hear the case. At this time, YouTube/Google continues to infringe copyrights at catastrophic, worldwide distribution levels, and their supporters are a massive amount of users that simply want everything for free---the worst case scenario for deflation. Arguments that state they are "the best advertisement vehicle by infringing the content" are not rational. There will be more concerning this as the days, weeks, months, and probably years continue forward; however, now the arguments will be accelerated----the delays (3 years worth) caused in the district court were unfounded. 3 years of collecting cash for Google from YOUR copyrights, including registered copyrights.
I don't like the recession, I don't like being infringed by Google/YouTube nor by their "friend-of-the-court" briefs. They won't stop the practice until they are held liable. Don't worry, Google will bury this article in their search algorithm. How else to insist favor toward their business model.....a for profit business model that infringes copyrights everyday, worldwide.
Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary has issued a statement on today's ruling. He is confident Viacom will win on appeal. To read Mr. Fricklas's statement, please access the direct Viacom link below:
http://news.viacom.com/news/Pages/summaryjudgment.aspx
WE AGREE. Viacom WILL WIN on appeal. Please make note that Google and YouTube *continue* to infringe copyrights at catastrophic levels AFTER the Viacom lawsuit. We have proof.
Viacom's Fact Page and what's at stake:
http://news.viacom.com/news/Pages/youtubelitigation.aspx
Multiply all of Viacom's infringed copyrights by similar numbers for ALL COPYRIGHT OWNERS worldwide that are being infringed by Google/YouTube in the exact same manner, and it is in the trillions of dollars. Inconceivable, according to Judge Stanton.....an incorrect decision that he rendered which will be appealed and overturned. YouTube/Google are not a service provider.
Support Viacom's efforts so you can be compensated for ALL your work, and always know when your work is being infringed:
http://news.viacom.com/news/Pages/broadindustrysupport.aspx
Google and YouTube, that infringe copyrights, and are not service providers, nor "platforms", are not on this list.
Bloomberg's article (most comprehensive and educationally informative):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-23/google-s-youtube-web-site-wins-ruling-in-copyright-suit-brought-by-viacom.html
SAMBA........SUGARLOAF........JUNGLE........PIRANHA.Captain Yuriko Kumage - The Defender of Finance (eighth article June 24, 2010 08:08 JST)
