Youtube, Dmca, Viacom discussed on TechStuff

TechStuff
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Free that's A. S. A. N. A. DOT COM getting back into the DMC. We're ready to move onto title to and I know some of you are thinking they're five titles here. How long is this going to go? But really titles one and two are the big ones and the other ones are. We'll we'll touch on them but they won't be quite as an extensive so title. Two is the online copyright infringement liability limitation act which creates limitations on liability for online service providers for copyright infringement winning gauged in certain types of activities so this is of course where the term safe harbor comes from is this title two of the DMCA so safe harbor is essentially this idea that if you are an online service provider and that could be anything from an Internet service provider an ISP to a platform that people use on the Internet. Like Tumbler Youtube. Yeah exactly that. If you provide that service you are not necessarily monetarily liable for any copyright infringement. That's being performed by the users of your platform right now but there are again very specific rules in play. It's not that you're a given free license. You can't just sit there and say safe harbors safe harbor. I'm okay you have to actually show that you are one unaware that the stuff is going on and to you cannot be benefiting from the fact that infringement is going on right and furthermore if a company contacts you and says hey this thing is on your site. I it's it's copyright infringement. Please take it down. You have to do that to responded very quickly. And that's one of the reasons why we see these. These things happen where youtube will pull something very quickly because they have to under the rules of DMCA. If they received that notification I mean there's PROB- several big cases against Youtube that are all about copyright infringement. Viacom has a huge case which is still going on. That was filed in two thousand seven over contention of hundred sixty thousand clips that had been viewed one point five billion times and they were basically saying youtube you. I'll quote from it because Youtube directly profits from the Availabil- availability of popular infringing on its site. It has decided decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the Youtube site on a daily or hourly basis to detect infringing videos. So Viacom saying hey. This should not be our job and YouTube. Saying hey shouldn't be our job either. Seventy two hours worth of material being uploaded every minute. There's no one who can sit there and go over every single frame of every single video that's always Being submitted to the service. And that's basically what the court said. They threw it out without even being tried in. Twenty ten came back actually in April of two thousand twelve there was a reversal. The the court said that basically a reasonable jury could have found that that youtube was aware of what was going on. And just not taking steps right. Yes that's that's one of the things under DMCA that if the the surprise aware of it they have to take steps to prevent now again. If it's something it comes under fair use. That's where it gets muddy again really sticky and yeah because I mean it's it's not. It's not youtube job to determine what is fair use and what is not and the the the copyright holder is supposed to at least take into consideration before taking steps but ultimately fair uses something. That's decided in a court of law you know it's it's it's all down to does the copyright holder wants to take the steps to actually Prosecute someone and then the court decides if it was fair use or not. That's the real problem with us. It's really something that's decided after a court case if no court case happens so if a copyright holder never comes after you for the way. You've used something you could argue. That's because it's fair use but legally speaking. That's not the determination. It's just that no one came after you That doesn't mean that they won't come after you sometime in the future. This is the fun part of Copyright Law Right. So let's talk about some of the the things that that the the limitations on liability cover for copyright infringement. This'll safe harbor idea. One of them is transitory communications. Now this limited liability of a service provider when all the providers doing is acting as a data conduit in other words all they're doing is allowing information to pass from one entity to another entity. They're not they're not taking part in whatever. The content is They're essentially there's pipes and if you are the one who owns the pipes. You cannot be held responsible monetarily for any copyright infringement material that passes along as long as you are not complicit in that transaction so in other words if you're a service provider and you are not knowingly providing people the chance to send copyright infringement cereal back and forth or you're not profiting from it then you're not liable but if you're profiting from it then there's a problem and that's one of the things against Youtube. Is that if youtube is running ads against videos. Then that means the profiting from those videos so if the videos our videos that infringe upon something then there's there's a case there for DMCA now granted most of the time. The first step is still saying. Take this down and if you does that that's usually as far as it goes but it's something to keep in mind next system caching That limits reliability of service that retains data to send it later at cinders discretion so there are a lot of different ways of thinking about this but imagine that you have scheduled something to post at a particular time. Well a copy of that. Information may be existing on a service provider's site but what you're saying is that if materials copyrighted and it's an authorized. It's an unauthorized copy. The system cannot be held responsible for holding that copy because they're really just fulfilling their service again. Same rules apply. They can't be complicit they can't be profiting from it Storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users. Same sort of thing. You have on cloud storage if if I have a cloud storage account and the you know part of that is that I I am trusting that my provider is not snooping in on all the stuff that I'm storing on my cloud storage Then you know you can't hold the cloud storage company responsible. If I'm filling up my storage with you know all right to look at all every single one of the files right when I put my unauthorized discography of Brittany Spears up there. They can't you know they're not held responsible for it right. I should definitely hold responsibility for something like that if I were to ever do that. And I fully expect to be held responsible and also will never happen Then there's the information location tool since this. Is things like search engines so if you were to type in something in a search engine for example you were interested in a particular television show. Let's say I don't know supernatural and you were type that in some of the links that came back linked to things that were infringing. Copyright the search engine would not be held responsible for those links unless again it was violating those other roles so in other words you can't blame for putting a link up to material that infringes upon copyright because Google is not the one responsible for the material. It's just reporting. It's just a dexing links although it does do so with ads that makes me wonder. What's any kind of any of that sticky there? That's probably another issue but again there are also told that if someone reports that they are supposed to block access or taking those links down dents raised a lot of ir in the various communities online about the idea of blocking links because it's essentially breaking one of the fundamental parts of the Internet or at least the web if not the Internet. Anyway it's a different discussion Those are the four main areas where the liability is limited. They also says section twelve which is the specific section of the The law that this The it also contains a provision to ensure that service providers are not placed in the position of choosing between limitations on liability on the one hand and preserving the privacy of their subscribers on the other so in other words they are not supposed to be put into any kind of position where they have to identify someone when part of their business is all about. Hey your driver respect the privacy. Yeah they are supposed to be allowed to remain free of that. But even that has some issues so Like but essentially this is to make sure that they remain in compliance with things like the electronic communications privacy. Act SO in other words you're talking about two different laws here that kind of conflict with one another which one has precedents. In this case the privacy hell holds up over the copyright violation and really the reason why this whole section exists is to prevent companies from having to undergo massive amounts of expenses to defend themselves or also to endure excessive interference from copyright holders or from government officials and So you know the fact that the DMC stuff is in a way it's you could you could see it as a way of of bending to the will of copyright holders. That's the way a lot of critics point painted right like the. Dmca is just the government. laying down in front of copyright holders. But this one just one really actually work saw in the other direction in favor of the service providers who are just trying to do their jobs and are not necessarily. There was a case in two thousand six. I O group felt a complaint against networks for networks had site that would let users trans code video into flash sure and and I AGREE. He was saying that via networks users were trans- trans- coding videos into flash that that were copyright infringement. Okay so that they were taking a video that were under copyright and through the process of trends coating them that was violating the copyright and. They said that they said that via was responsible for this. Because as as a coder they were. They were implicit in the they were. They were actually. They were giving the people the ability to infringe just from the very nature of what the service was in the court ruled that the process was automated and that therefore yeah video had no knowledge and like they. They could not know what the content was because the actual process of trance. Coding had nothing to do with a human being reviewing stuff and saying. Hey wait a minute. It was really good that a really important clear cut case to prevent that kind of legal action shooting in the future and that makes sense because I mean youtube had for a long time was always encoding videos into flash until a couple of switchover. Html five but same sort of thing that Viacom cases just kind of spinning courts right now. Both sides are arguing that the other is burdened with the proof that that youtube and therefore google had no idea what was going on and and really how do you prove that someone doesn't know something right. You have to have evidence that they did. No that's the only way you can prove. You can't prove negative but if you are able to prove that they did know and knowingly allowed it to happen that would be the The case all right. Well we've got a little bit more to say about the DMCA but before we get into that. Let's.

Coming up next