YouTube sued over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
 

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6095736.html

Robert Tur says video he shot of the beating of trucker Reginald Denny during the 1992 Los Angeles riots was posted at YouTube without his permission and viewed more than 1,000 times. Tur says in his lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, that YouTube is profiting from his work while hurting his ability to license his video.

"Mr. Tur's lawsuit is without merit," YouTube said in a statement. "YouTube is a service provider that complies with all the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and therefore is entitled to the full protections of the safe harbor provisions of the Act."

they will have to get google video then if thats the case. more than likely you tube is using the same loophole as guba does. not sure though so don't quote me.

I love how the YouTube clones use the "DMCA" to wash their hands, while they piss on the content owners... however must admit that some clones does it more professionally than others.

Notice how he did not ask that his content be removed before filing the suit....

haha nice. I hope he win, unfortunately its about who has the most money and not justice :Oh crap

And never confuse justice with the law ..... I wish him well :thumbsup

Yea but really why should he ? If someones steals your car and you know who stole it, would ask the thief for it back before calling the police ? No :)

Been waiting for this, people know they have Milllions (although for how long at the rate of $1 million loss a month on bandwidth).

Only a matter of time before all the content owners start sueing for a piece of the action.

Matt

Isn't it part of the DMCA that you comply with REQUESTS to remove such things?
Similar how can-spam compliance means you have to have clear opt-outs and such.
Basically you cant cry infringment or spam until you've exhausted efforts on your own. Like if there is a loud party next door the cops will ask you first if you've asked them to quiet down before they'll come around.

good luck to him! he'll need it!

WTF?? The guy has no case at all! The amount he is gonna sue($150000) for must be proven by how much money he could of made with that clip. He can't prove shit!
Besides, they ARE protected by the DMCA! And he didn't even ask for it to be removed beforehand(unlike your car example, youtube didn't attempt to STEAL his video, just share it with community and would of taken it off if asked). He's looking for easy money. He is just wasting money on lawyers, I feel bad for the guy.:helpme

It brings the DMCA into issue. The DMCA has a 'safe harbor' provision regarding rights owner requests to have infringing material pulled.

You are wrong. If his content was registered on a timely basis, he doesn't have to prove anything in terms of damages. The law provides for statutory damages, up to $150,000 per infringement.

For those of you that think the DMCA is the end all be all in safe harbor protection, look up Perfect 10 v. Google. for an interesting read.

What is Guba's loophole anyways?

I'm pretty sure the bottom line would be did he notify of an infringment, and if so was that request acted on promptly or not? Thats gonna be about it.

They dont have one.

it was waiting to hapenne...

Yep. He jumped the gun by filing suit immediately.

$150,000 happens to be the amount that a court may award in statutory damages in the case of copyright infringements where the copyright was registered before the infringement took place. That may be a coincidence, but Mr. Tur is a journalist and quite possibly routinely copyrights his work.

It isn't necessary in such cases to prove any financial loss, nor does he have to prove anything beyond being able to demonstrate that his copyrighted material was used without his permission. In such cases, there is no requirement to prove intent.

Unfortunately DMCA does make it harder to prove culplable copyright infringement than it is offline: mainly thanks to the "safe harbor" provisions that the OSP is required to actually know that the material is infringing and is not aware of information from which the infringing nature of the material is apparent.

It is only a matter of time before the right lawyer meets the right judge and the house of cards will come down. To anyone outside a courtroom it is ludicrous that a business model based entirely on the illegal use of copyrighted material by people who are fully aware that they are exploiting the lack of legal precedent, can be considered to be within the law. Maybe a disgruntled ex-employee will testify or produce incriminating documents: who knows.

The DMCA was only written to accomodate those who legitimately pass along digital data without being aware of its nature. Its sloppy language is the sole reason loopholes exist, and they will be closed eventually, either by the courts or by the legislators themselves.