Viacom appealing YouTube case

Viacom on Friday said it would appeal its loss to YouTube in a Second US Circuit Court of Appeals after attempting to sue the video site for copyright infringement. It argued that the court incorrectly interpreted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by ruling that YouTube had followed safe harbor guidelines by initially dealing with piracy only by responding to takedown requests from Viacom and others. The judge's statement that YouTube "welcomed" piracy, even if it took down violators, was proof the DMCA didn't apply, Viacom said.

It further alleged that YouTube was intentionally stealing copyrighted material. The company tried to fuel a straw man argument and contended that a digital economy "cannot exist" unless YouTube and every other online service is legally required to monitor all submitted content for copyrighted materials.

Google in a response to the appeal said it was disappointed Viacom would "drag out" the case instead of accepting the verdict. It would "strongly defend" the summary judgment that handed it an early victory, a spokeswoman said.

Viacom's argument may be difficult to make as Google has already taken steps to prevent easy piracy in the wake of the original lawsuit from 2007. It already uses audio and video identification tools to check for when a video is likely to be a pirated version of a movie, TV show or song. On Thursday it said it was taking additional steps, such as either taking down or greenlighting a disputed video within 24 hours.

Critics and legal experts have noted that a Viacom victory would potentially have far reaching consequences and might make it difficult to avoid litigation for user-submitted sites. Pirated material still exists on YouTube despite its filters, and the lack of action could be perceived in Viacom's view as knowing violations since they were not promptly removed by YouTube itself. The judge ruling in favor of YouTube also rejected Viacom's view, noting a clear difference between being aware of piracy as a whole and being aware of specific instances that required action.

YouTube's view was also supported by LimeWire's defeat and subsequent closure. Unlike the Google-owned firm, LimeWire knew its peer-to-peer client was used primarily for specific instances of piracy and was often slow or unresponsive with requests to block material.

By Electronista Staff