A court case that could impact all the tube sites

[Don RELISH]

There was an interesting case in the Californian courts this week between a lesser-known video sharing service and a US porn company. It's interesting because it may set a precedent that is important in the high profile Viacom v YouTube legal dispute, which is still pending.

Adult entertainment firm Io Group sued video sharing platform Veoh after ten of its videos were uploaded to the sharing platform in 2006, despite Veoh removing the content as soon as Io told them it shouldn't be there. Io argued that by allowing the content to go live in the first place Veoh were guilty of copyright infringement, but the web firm argued that under the US's DCMA copyright laws they are protected from infringement charges providing they remove unlicensed content on their servers whenever they are made aware of its existence. Additionally Io argued that because Veoh "transcode" the video files users upload so that they will play through their flash based player (in common with most video sharing platforms), they were also guilty of primary infringement.

This is pretty much identical to the case being pursued by MTV owners Viacom against YouTube through the New York courts. So far this interpretation of US copyright laws that says YouTube and Veoh et al cannot be held liable for infringing content on their servers providing they take it down whenever they are made aware of it has been much disputed, with the net firms arguing that is clearly the case, whereas content owners say it is wrong the law should be interpreted in a way that puts the onus (and cost) of monitoring the distribution of unlicensed content onto them.

In the Io/Veoh case District Judge Howard Lloyd found in favour of the video sharing platform. He said that the DCMA does provide protection to video sharing sites who responsibly remove unlicensed content when told to do so, that Veoh had indeed done just that, and because the transcoding process was automatic and did not and could not screen content, that action was not relevant to the case.

It remains to be seen if this ruling can be used by YouTube owners Google to strengthen their defence against the Viacom lawsuit. Judges are often less helpful in protecting the interests of porn companies, so the New York courts may prove more helpful to a mainstream entertainment firm like Viacom. However, those in the web industry will be hoping the Veoh case strengthens YouTube's chances of a legal victory, and in doing so provide a clear message that legitimate video sharing sites are not liable for infringement in the same way P2P file sharing services like Grokster have previously been deemed to be.

[Karupted Charles]

Does this earn a timeline pic?

[Don RELISH]

That late huh?

Sorry mate, I don't site on the board all day and scan all the threads...

[TheDoc]

It's a little different with Google, the deal they were working on with Viacom fell through. In short, Viacom isn't making money every time a clip goes up, however Google is selling ads directly next to the video. They had 15,000 clips online, one clip would go down and turn around and go back up. Viacom would have to hire full time employees just to monitor YouTube, when YouTube states they have filtering, and hand filtering, to help stop this stuff.

It's a bit different fight over very different reasons.

What Titan did was just stupid, it had nothing to do fighting piracy, but rather trying to fight technology - which you will lose against every time.