Robert Tur is an award-winning helicopter pilot and journalist who does business licensing and selling videos, photographs, and a variety of other products found useful by all kinds of media including Internet, television, radio, motion pictures and print.
This case is of interest to me, because it shows an interpretation of the legislation that opposed YouTube.
On July 14, 2006, Tur filed this action for copyright infringement and unfair competition against YouTube claiming that his videos were uploading to the YouTube server and made available to the public without his permission. In October of the same year, YouTube claimed safe harbor protection under the DMCA as codified in 17 U.S.C. 512(c), which states that “In general, a service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if...”
The DMCA applies this protection to internet service providers on the condition that certain requirements are met (These requirements are explained in my other articles and cases.)
In this particular case, the court makes its decision on the criteria that the DMCA requires the provider to have the “right and ability to exercise control over the infringing activity on its site.” As defined by other cases (mentioned in this particular case), this right and ability is more than just the ability to remove or block access to content that has been flagged. The requirement includes some antecedent ability to limit or filter copyrighted material.
The court denies YouTube’s motion. I cite this case in order to show a case that looks like it will be a problem for YouTube if any other cases appear. With such a high expectation for the ability to prevent infringing material from going public, YouTube is pressured to develop some technology to allow this screening, otherwise their liability may put them in a hole, financially. I find this case to be a different interpretation of the DMCA legislation than my previous sources. This should provide a basis for a counter-argument.