Viacom – YouTube Litigation

The Court Ruling

By Michael Fricklas, Viacom Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

We are disappointed with the judge's ruling, but confident we will win on appeal.

Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industries. It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others. Without this protection, investment in the development of art and entertainment would be discouraged, and the many artists and producers who devote their lives to creating it would be hurt. Copyright protection is also critical to the web– because consumers love professional content and because legitimate websites shouldn't have to compete with pirates.

YouTube and Google demonstrated that required tools to limit piracy aren't impossible to find or even that difficult to implement – they fixed the problem of rampant piracy on YouTube after Viacom filed this lawsuit.

Before that, however, YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars. We believe that should not be allowed by law or common sense.

This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today's decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.

• Grokster Redux: Why the Summary-Judgment Ruling in Viacom v. YouTube Should Be Reversed
  by Thomas D. Sydnor II

  In Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., U.S. District Judge Stanton held that because the original founders of YouTube had responded to takedown notices, they were protected against monetary civil liability for copyright infringement by the § 512(c) "safe-harbor" created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA")-even if they were also intentionally inducing mass copyright piracy just like the defendants in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. For at least two reasons, Judge Stanton's Viacom Opinion should be appealed and reversed.

• Viacom v. YouTube: Can YouTube Welcome and Profit From Infringing Activity and Then Claim Not to Know About It?
  by Andrew Berger

  Is Judge Stanton's decision in Viacom v. YouTube vulnerable on appeal? You bet. Before I explain why some background.

• Viacom v. YouTube: A Missed Opportunity
  by Scott A. Zebrak, National Law Journal

  The recent Viacom v. YouTube litigation was an opportunity to meaningfully clarify the contours of acceptable and unacceptable behavior by so–called "user–generated content" sites toward copyrighted works. Unfortunately, on June 23, a federal district judge in the Southern District of New York missed that opportunity, granting the video–sharing site YouTube LLC (now owned by Google Inc.) a complete victory. The extreme ruling is the latest in a disturbing trend of one–sided interpretations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in favor of service providers, to the detriment of copyright holders.

• Viacom V. YouTube: The Rest of the Story
  by Cory Andrews, Washington Legal Foundation

  Unfortunately, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York yesterday rendered a decision that effectively grants blanket immunity to website operators who tolerate and profit from copyright infringement.

• Google Wins Round One Against Viacom
  by Ronald A. Cass, Forbes.com

  Legal rights that protect property are cornerstones of successful societies. Freedom to take what others have built--the rule of pirates--undermines them. In the film Pirates of the Caribbean, when Keira Knightly's character seeks to invoke the Pirate's Code, Geoffrey Rush (the Pirate Captain) explains that he need not keep to the letter of the law--for pirates, the Code isn't a set of binding rules, "just guidelines, really." On Wednesday one judge treated a legal provision designed to protect property rights without going overboard in much the same way--as just guidelines, really. But what makes a good movie line doesn't make good law.

• Viacom v. YouTube: Why Are We Re-Litigating Grokster?
  by Thomas Sydnor, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

  "Again?" That was my reaction when I read the Opinion and Order issued last night by Judge Louis Stanton in Viacom v. YouTube. How ironic that the original YouTube--the "video Grokster" will now force the re-litigation of a minor variation of the same question answered unanimously by the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. But so be it. I've seen this movie already. I think I know how its sequel ends.

• Coalition Condemns Google Ruling
  by Ted Johnson, Variety

  Another org has weighed in against the U.S. District Court's Google decision in favor of YouTube: It's Arts+Labs, which was launched several years back to bridge the Silicon Valley-Hollywood divide. The coalition of creative and tech companies includes partners Viacom (which lost the suit), Microsoft, Songwriters Guild of America, JibJab, NBC Universal, Cisco and AT&T.

• Why Viacom Likely Wins Viacom-Google Copyright Appeal
  by Scott Cleland, Precursor Blog

  Viacom is likely to ultimately prevail in its appeal of the lower Court decision in the seminal Viacom vs. Google-YouTube copyright infringement case.

• Viacom v. YouTube: A Disappointing Decision, But How Important?
  By Ben Sheffner, Copyrights & Campaigns

  I've now had a chance to re-read and digest last week's summary judgment ruling in Viacom v. YouTube. A few thoughts:

• DGA Statement Regarding Viacom-YouTube Lawsuit
  by Taylor Hackford, President, June 24, 2010

  The DGA is troubled by the judge's decision to shield copyright-infringing websites based on his interpretation of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

• Objecting to the Increasing Burden on Copyright Owners and Creators
  by Patrick Ross, Executive Director The Copyright Alliance, June 24, 2010

  How did we find ourselves in a world where a group of venture-funded entrepreneurs can knowingly build a business model off of the display of unauthorized copyrighted works, be on the record as knowing that their cash flow would stem almost solely from this infringement, and still get off the hook as long as they took works down after being notified by the copyright owner? What are the implications of this world not just for producers of television shows and motion pictures, but for creators of all stripes?

• PFF's Sydnor Says All Lose with YouTube Court Order
  by Thomas Syndor, The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog, June 24, 2010

  Judge Stanton held that federal law creates a "safe harbor" that protects not only criminal conduct, but criminal racketeering enterprises. That result made no sense in Grokster, and it makes no sense today. In doing so, Stanton's decision endangers consumers, hosting services, and artists–it leaves everyone worse off.