Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Viacom v. YouTube
More than 150 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story found that copyright and patent cases come 'nearer than any other class of cases belonging to forensic discussions, to what may be called the metaphysics of the law where the distinctions are, or at least may be, very subtile [sic] and refined, and, sometimes, almost evanescent.' See, Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 344 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841).
It is likely that the type of issues Justice Story had in mind will be at the center of the lawsuit Viacom, and related entities ('Viacom'), initiated against YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC and Google Inc. ('YouTube') on March 13, 2007. In February of this year, Viacom provided YouTube with 'take down notices' for removal of all of its copyright protected content after the two parties failed to reach a distribution agreement following months of negotiation. The suit that followed alleges, among other things, that 'YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale, depriving writers, composers and performers of the rewards that are owed for effort and innovation, reducing the incentives of America's creative industries, and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well.' Moreover, the suit states that 'YouTube's brazen disregard of the intellectual property laws fundamentally threatens not just Plaintiffs but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.' Viacom alleges that it has identified more than 150,000 copies of infringing materials posted on YouTube which have collectively been viewed over 1.5 billion times. Google Inc., recent YouTube acquirer, has not historically been a stranger to claims that it engages in copyright infringement by the likes of its Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search and Google Book Search projects, and it appears that its YouTube acquisition has engendered more of the same comments about its cavalier attitude toward others' intellectual property rights.
The concept of legal protection for intellectual property can be traced back to Ireland in the sixth century. At that time a renegade bishop, who would later become St. Columba, snuck into a library and copied, by hand, a psalter (which is essentially a book containing various psalms) and thereafter provided copies for free to various local churches. This incensed the owner of the library and he filed a claim against St. Columba in King Diarmait's royal court. This was very interesting since there was no reference to the library's owner being the author of the psalter, merely the owner of the book. Regardless, the King decreed 'To every cow its calf, to every book its copy,' and fined St. Columba 40 head of cattle for making an unauthorized copy. St. Columba rallied his kinsmen and went to war against King Diarmait over the decision. This event, referred to as the 'Battle of the Books', led to King Diarmait's defeat in 560 or 561. While fining an infringer 40 head of cattle is nowhere to be seen in the current federal statutory copyright damages, the concept of going to war to vigorously protect a rights-holder continues to persevere in our court system even to this day.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?