![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
BBC MUNDO RADIO
The entertainment giant Viacom is asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn last year's ruling
that Google is not liable for copyright-infringing Viacom content
uploaded to its YouTube site. Speaking Tuesday before a three-judge
panel, a Viacom lawyer argued that the lower court erred in holding that
YouTube was eligible for the safe harbor provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.
When Congress was crafting the DMCA in 1998, ISPs successfully lobbied for a provision granting immunity to online service providers for the copyright-infringing activities of their users. As long as service providers follow certain guidelines, including promptly removing content when notified by copyright holders, service providers are shielded from liability. The immunity provision helped lay the foundation for the modern Web.
Google argues that because it follows the DMCA's takedown procedure, it isn't responsible for the videos its users choose to upload. A federal judge sided with Google last year.
But Viacom points to two factors its says make Google ineligible for the safe harbor. The DMCA not only requires ISPs who want the safe harbor to act when notified of specific infringement; it also requires them to act if becomes aware of "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." Viacom argues that infringing content was so rampant on YouTube—especially during the company's early days—that the site fails this test. The DMCA also excludes from the safe harbor firms that "receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity." Viacom argues that YouTube's advertising allows it to profit from infringing ads.
Viacom lawyer Paul Smith reiterated those points in Tuesday's oral argument. He alleged that infringing content was a key part of YouTube's early strategy for building the site's audience. And he pointed out that Google could be doing more to block infringing content. For example, he pointed out that YouTube has had little difficulty keeping pornographic content off the site, and suggested that Google shouldn't have any trouble filtering out infringing content as well.
But Google counsel Andrew Shapiro countered that the law doesn't require YouTube to adopt the latest filtering technologies; it merely requires the site to remove infringing material when notified of its existence. And he also argued that filtering infringing content is more difficult than filtering pornography. For example, he pointed out that Viacom employees had themselves uploaded clips of some Viacom content, and that Viacom had then had difficulty distinguishing between these authorized clips and unauthorized ones. If Viacom can't accurately identify infringing copies of its own content, he said, it's not reasonable to expect Google to do so.
Also participating in the arguments was Charles Sims, representing a British soccer league. He argued that YouTube had profited from pirated soccer clips.
Viacom is swimming against the current. In 2009, a judge ruled that the video site Veoh qualifies for the safe harbor. And in August, a different judge found that the music locker service MP3tunes was also eligible despite having a search engine that made it easy to find infringing songs and place them in a user's locker. It's possible these decisions will be reversed on appeal, but so far websites claiming the safe harbor have had an impressive winning streak.
When Congress was crafting the DMCA in 1998, ISPs successfully lobbied for a provision granting immunity to online service providers for the copyright-infringing activities of their users. As long as service providers follow certain guidelines, including promptly removing content when notified by copyright holders, service providers are shielded from liability. The immunity provision helped lay the foundation for the modern Web.
Google argues that because it follows the DMCA's takedown procedure, it isn't responsible for the videos its users choose to upload. A federal judge sided with Google last year.
But Viacom points to two factors its says make Google ineligible for the safe harbor. The DMCA not only requires ISPs who want the safe harbor to act when notified of specific infringement; it also requires them to act if becomes aware of "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." Viacom argues that infringing content was so rampant on YouTube—especially during the company's early days—that the site fails this test. The DMCA also excludes from the safe harbor firms that "receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity." Viacom argues that YouTube's advertising allows it to profit from infringing ads.
Viacom lawyer Paul Smith reiterated those points in Tuesday's oral argument. He alleged that infringing content was a key part of YouTube's early strategy for building the site's audience. And he pointed out that Google could be doing more to block infringing content. For example, he pointed out that YouTube has had little difficulty keeping pornographic content off the site, and suggested that Google shouldn't have any trouble filtering out infringing content as well.
But Google counsel Andrew Shapiro countered that the law doesn't require YouTube to adopt the latest filtering technologies; it merely requires the site to remove infringing material when notified of its existence. And he also argued that filtering infringing content is more difficult than filtering pornography. For example, he pointed out that Viacom employees had themselves uploaded clips of some Viacom content, and that Viacom had then had difficulty distinguishing between these authorized clips and unauthorized ones. If Viacom can't accurately identify infringing copies of its own content, he said, it's not reasonable to expect Google to do so.
Also participating in the arguments was Charles Sims, representing a British soccer league. He argued that YouTube had profited from pirated soccer clips.
Viacom is swimming against the current. In 2009, a judge ruled that the video site Veoh qualifies for the safe harbor. And in August, a different judge found that the music locker service MP3tunes was also eligible despite having a search engine that made it easy to find infringing songs and place them in a user's locker. It's possible these decisions will be reversed on appeal, but so far websites claiming the safe harbor have had an impressive winning streak.
|
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário