Different Interpretations of YouTube RulingAdded: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Less than 2 weeks ago the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed out a very important decision in the lawsuit that involved Viacom and Google, about massive copyright violation on the YouTube network. The case was revived, to the satisfaction of Viacom, but it turned out that future litigants and judges can interpret the ruling differently.
Now the rights owners and their legal targets discuss the meaning of what the appellate circuit said in the decision. Last week the MPAA expressed its own opinion, while Hotfile’s attorneys replied that the plaintiffs were just trying to put a “brave face” on the ruling.
Currently, Hollywood studios are pushing for a summary judgment against Hotfile, comparing it with MegaUpload. The outfit pointed at 4 key points in the ruling. First of all, it said that ISPs can obtain knowledge of copyright violation, which disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor, because they are willfully blind to infringement. Then, the ruling stressed that Grokster inducement responsibility depends on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, confirming that such conduct was inconsistent with DMCA safe harbor protection. In addition, the defendants’ argument was rejected saying that the higher DMCA standard for “ability to control” must be applied to common law vicarious violation too. Finally, the decision reaffirmed that ISPs are able to obtain knowledge of infringing activity which disqualifies them from DMCA safe harbor from sources other than rights holder takedown notices.
However, Hotfile has a different interpretation of the ruling, saying that plaintiffs have submitted a filing which badly distorts the important aspects of the decision. Hotfile agrees with YouTube “blindness”, but only in specific cases of copyright violation. In addition, when talking about the “right and ability to control”, the MPAA is accused of supporting the idea that DMCA safe harbors can’t be applied to those who possibly maintain inducement liability. In other words, the MPAA was trying to “camouflage” the fact that the court actually disagreed with them on this provision of the DMCA.
As you can see, the parties each read elements of the ruling to support their respective causes. Although it is not surprising, there is surprisingly too little clarity in what the judges at the appellate circuit had to say.
April 25th,2012Posted by:
Wednesday, April 25th, 2012
|Could it be anymore confusing?|
|@ LDice YouTube is that site that doesn't make people more stupid, it just makes people's stupidity more easily available to everyone else.|
|I love you tube and places like it. I don't wanna PAY MONEY for studio released DVDs of an old tv show and find all the music changed. What's the point? Watched cheers last week and one of my all time fav jokes was ERASED because they took out the song "I fought the law" and replaced it with a generic track. THE JOKE LOST ALL MEANING... I'm not paying anyone money to relive half a memory. This copyright issue is out of hand.|
|@The_Ritty: i COMPLETELY agree, not only TV shows here, but Abroad.|
Its impossible to get shows from Asia and Europe without waiting 5 years for a company like "Funanimation" to come along and completely ruin it while releasing it(Albiet limited) to the United States.
This copyright issue became out of hand back in the 1960's. Now its a Declaration of War. Copyright Law was written to Protect Works of art. In the sense, Books written and PLAGIARIZED. Not "Copied" and released without a profit.
The inviduals which pushed for such legislation would be Appalled by the Actions of the MPAA and RIAA. They are trying EVERYTHING to stop innovation. For only profiteering Purposes. PLEASE, PLEEAAAASE, some one Sue those F***er's for Monopolizing!!!
|I was reading how the dvd (or syndication version) of Bosom Buddies (with Tom hanks) HAD many musical montages in it but now they've been severely edited down with new music or just CUT completely..lol WTF!? Billy joel did the theme song and now it's bye bye to that too. Dave's World with Harry anderson, again a billy joel song that's now generic music. What's the point of history if its gonna be whitewashed just to make a buck...god had i known then what I know no i'd have never thrown out all my vhs tapes - and for that matter I would taped everything the way it was. In my opinion if music was used in it originally - then they had the chance to sue way back when or GOT PAID for it ONCE already, just like the actors. nowadays, we have all this bull crap. Ok - new times, new rules. But the old stuff should be left alone - or give the composers the option to pull their music and show what greedy douches they are - at least then i could hate the right person instead of a faceless company that's putting out a crappy version of something cuz they just wanna make a buck and not pay the composers. I don't see myself getting paychecks from any of my previous jobs...||
Most Popular Stories