Viacom International, Inc., et al. v. YouTube Inc., YouTube LLC, and Google Inc.,

This is the case, long awaited, between Viacom and YouTube. In this case, Viacom makes a number of requests compelling YouTube to release information as well as media and content. While there are eight motions, they are not all granted; five are denied. This is interesting, as we must note the reasoning behind Judge Louis L. Stranton’s decisions on July 1, 2008.
In favor of YouTube, the motion to compel production of search code is denied, and the cross motion for a protective order of the source code is granted. This is based on the reasoning that such a disclosure would expose a trade secret (that costs thousands of man hours) and that there is no evidence that such a tool could even filter out infringing videos. The motion to compel production of the source code for the Video ID program is also denied on the grounds that it is also a trade secret and Viacom doesn’t make a significant showing of need. Also, YouTube claims that they could figure it out by using it. Judge Stranton does grant the motion to compel production of all removed videos. Viacom claims that access to all of these files is necessary to identify any infringing videos (but burden of such a task lies on Viacom). It is also granted that YouTube produce all data from Logging databases concerning each time a video is viewed on the website or on a third-party website. This passes because of the insufficiency of an IP address to identify personal information. The motion to compel production of all those data fields which defendants have agreed to produce for works-in-suit, for all videos that have been posted to the YouTube website is denied because “No sufficiently compelling need is shown to justify the analysis of “millions of pieces of information” sought
by this request.” He also denies the motion to compel production of the schema for Google Advertising databases, but grants for the schema regarding the Google Video Content database. This is because the plaintiffs have already been promised the only relevant data in the database, they do not need Google’s confidential map of how it runs its advertising business. Viacom is also denied the ability to access all private videos, except the data related to these videos that is not the actual content.
This is essentially the main case that I will use as an example in my paper in determining whether or not YouTube’s business violates copyright laws. I hope to explore my other sources as well to see if there are any rulings that I do not agree with. It is important to note that the Judge’s decision is not to shut down YouTube, but to assure that any infringement is addressed, while maintaining YouTube’s ability to function as a unique video sharing network.

Viacom v. Youtube Court Ruling

Judge Stanton ruled in favor of Viacom in some aspects of his decision and in favor of Youtube in others. In favor of Youtube, he denied Viacom access to Youtube’s search code, noting that it is a trade secret that cost Youtube thousands of man-hours to produce and that it will not help Viacom determine the extent to which Youtube is liable. This decision came after numerous programming experts testified that there is currently no search code in existence with the ability to distinguish between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works. Similarly, the judge denied Viacom access to the Video ID Program. The judge also denied Viacom’s request for access to all videos currently available on the Youtube servers. Viacom claimed this would help them determine how much knowledge Youtube had relating to infringing videos, but Youtube’s response that they have been entirely accommodating to Viacom’s requests was favored by the judge. The judge stated that there is “no compelling need…to justify the analysis of millions of pieces of information.” The judge similarly denied access to the Advertising Schema, stating that this was both a trade secret and not necessary information. However, the judge favored with Viacom in many aspects, in an attempt to allow them to research how much power Youtube has over infringing videos on its website. He mandated that Youtube produce information about all videos that have already been removed so as to determine the amount of copyright infringing videos that have been available in the past. Most interestingly, he allowed Viacom access to all information about who has viewed which videos and how many times they have been viewed. This includes IP addresses, screen names, and videos viewed for every user. Viacom states that this will allow them to know, proportionally, whether copyrighted videos are typically viewed more often or less often than non-copyrighted videos. The judge also allowed Viacom access to the Google Video Content database so as to allow Viacom to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing activity.

This decision is interesting because it details the opinions of a judge who has considered both Viacom and Youtube’s opinions. He allows Youtube to retain several of its valuable coding secrets, but makes large concessions to Viacom to allow them to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing material. The reason for this decision can likely be linked to the relatively young age of cases like this. The DMCA has only been active for 10 years and many aspects of website liability for users infringing on copyrights are still uncertain. By allowing Viacom access to Youtube video records, the court is essentially hoping that Viacom will either show that Youtube is guilty of indirect liability or that Youtube has no control over the infringement beyond its current efforts. Thus, the impact of this court decision will likely come from Viacom’s analysis of Youtube video information. In my paper, I plan to further examine the same topic: whether or not Youtube is completely free from liability for infringing material.

PennTags Feed for /url/35493

Viacom International, Inc., et al. v. YouTube Inc., YouTube LLC, and Google Inc.,

Viacom v. Youtube Court Ruling