The never ending efforts of Viacom, a content provider, to breach the protections provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 have again been foiled. This time, it is they slightly large case of Viacom against YouTube in which the content provider failed to convince a judge the DMCA safe harbors should be ignored.
The DMCA provides any site with immunity from monetary liability related to copyright infringement for any materials uploaded by users so long as the site meets certain requirements such as designating a DMCA agent to receive complaints. In English, this means YouTube cannot be held liable if one of the millions of members of the site uploads a copy of a song, television show or whatever. Only the member uploading the content is on the hook.
The problem with this scenario is the copyright holders end up seeing their content posted time and again on sites, postings for which they receive no royalties. Under the DMCA, they can serve takedown notices, but the web is so extensive that this turns into a never ending process.
Viacom is a predator. They have long been an aggressive company in pretty much all facets. They also happen to be the parent company and copyright holder for material ranging from the Daily Show to a huge library of musical works.
The company has been involved in a long, drawn out copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube and, perhaps more importantly, Google as the owner of YouTube. The Viacom argument has basically boiled down to claiming the immunity provided by the DMCA should not apply to YouTube because the video site knows infringing content is being uploaded and turns a blind eye to it.
The courts have thrown this case back and forth between the trial and appellate levels. The most recent step is the trial court judge denying the argument put forth by Viacom. Specifically, Judge Stanton notes:
“…knowledge of the prevalence of infringing activity, and welcoming it, does not itself forfeit the safe harbor. To forfeit that, the provider must influence or participate in the infringement.”
That noise you just heard was the air going out of the Viacom balloon.
What It Means
So, what does all this mean? It essentially means the DMCA remains in place as we know it for now. For site owners, this is welcome news. Without such immunity, the idea of allowing users to post content on your site would become very dangerous since you would essentially be liable for anything they posted. While the Facebooks of the world could come up with expensive solutions, forums and online communities with a thousand members or so would most likely have to close down.
Viacom is promising to appeal this ruling. This would normally seem a dubious effort, but the 2nd District Court of Appeals is populated with judges who, shall we say, are not particularly savvy when it comes to the web. There last ruling in this case was laugh-out-lad bad, so we need to be a bit carefully in saying this case is over. Still, Viacom is on its last legs here.
As things stand now, the DMCA remains in full force and effect. Posters may dislike it and copyright holders hate it, but this is a powerful and important protection for websites. If you own a site and allow users to post on it, you can breathe a sigh of relief for now.
Richard A. Chapo, Esq.
The content on this website is intended to be educational and is not specific legal advice for your situation. The information is not updated. This site and blog constitutes a communication, solicitation and advertisement pursuant to relevant rules of professional conduct and professional codes in California.