tagged w/ Veoh
-
U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that Veoh, an online-video service, is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe-harbor provision and cannot be held liable for acts of copyright infringement committed by users. This was the most significant victory that the tech sector has seen against copyright owners in some time. (HAHA! stupid elite hollywood, maybe you wiil go broke like the rest of us)U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that Veoh, an online-video service, is... more
-
-
synjun
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
A federal court in California late Wednesday threw out a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the IO Group, an adult entertainment company, against Internet video sharing site Veoh Networks, saying that Veoh was protected by the safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.
IO Group, whose videos had been uploaded without permission to Veoh, had claimed that company was guilty of copyright infringement. But Veoh said it took great pains to prevent infringement and the court agreed.
“Far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its Web site and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its site,” Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd, of the United States District Court in San Jose, wrote in the decision.
The case has similarities with Viacom’s $1 billion suit against Google and its YouTube unit. While the ruling will not serve as binding legal precedent because the Viacom-Google case will be decided in Federal District Court in New York, it may prove influential.
Google wasted no time in praising the decision.
“It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights,” Zahavah Levine, YouTube’s chief counsel, said in a statement.
Viacom could not immediately be reached for comment.
But in a statement, Viacom said the ruling did not weaken its case against Google: “Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement – conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA.”
Nonetheless, legal experts said that YouTube was right to feel encouraged by the decision.
“The reason that this case is such good news for YouTube and other service providers, is that the court recognizes it is impossible to eliminate infringement and that Veoh should be recognized for the hard work they are doing,” said Eric Goldman, an associate professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of its High Tech Law Institute.
Judge Lloyd cautioned that “the decision rendered here is confined to the particular combination of facts in this case and is not intended to push the bounds of the safe harbor so wide that less scrupulous service providers may claim its protection.”
You can expect that the Viacom lawyers will argue that the facts in its case against YouTube are very different from those in IO Group v. Veoh Networks.
The entire decision is posted on TechCrunch.
-------------------
I personally think this is great! Keep uploading the subs Veoh, we love you for it.A federal court in California late Wednesday threw out a copyright infringement... more
-
-
Nettle
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Video-sharing service Veoh has been granted copyright immunity in a case that could influence other video services.
A US district court judge ruled that the video site qualified for protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and could not be suid for copyright infringement.
The site had been sued by adult video studio Io Group, which claimed that Veoh violated its copyright in 2006 when the site displayed user-uploaded clips from ten of its films.
The judge, however, sided with Veoh, ruling that the site had complied sufficiently with DMCA terms and should be awarded safe harbor from legal action.
Though it is commonly used as a vehicle for copyright owners to order video takedowns, the DMCA also provides protection for video sites in certain cases where it is deemed that the site is making an effort to protect copyright, but cannot completely control user uploads.
Fred Von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a blog posting that the decision was a 'total victory' for Veoh and should provide a valuable lesson for other sites threatened with copyright suits.
"The ruling should be required reading for the executives of every 'Web 2.0' business that relies on user-generated content," wrote Von Lohmann.
"The key to Veoh's victory was its scrupulous attention to the DMCA safe harbors. Veoh responded to compliant DMCA takedown notices on a same-day basis, it notified users of its policies against copyright infringement, it registered a Copyright Agent with the Copyright Office, it terminated users who were repeat infringers and blocked new registrations from the same email addresses, it used hashes to stop the same infringing videos from being uploaded by other users."
Video-sharing service Veoh has been granted copyright immunity in a case that could... more
-
-
No, this isn’t the big one, but nonetheless an important precedent: A federal judge in San Jose ruled today that video-sharing site Veoh was not liable for copyrighted material uploaded to its site, dismissing an early 2006 case filed against it by Io Group, an adult video firm. The site pleaded its defense under the “safe harbor” provisions of DMCA copyright law, which meant it could be safe as long as it removed the infringing video when alerted by the copyright holder, which the judge said that Veoh was doing.
SAI points out a key distinction that the judge mentions, between this case and the original P2P music piracy cases: “Napster (NSDQ: NAPS) existed solely to provide the site and facilities for copyright infringement, and its control over its system was directly intertwined with its ability to control infringing activity… by contrast, Veoh’s right and ability to control its system does not equate to the right and ability to control infringing activity. Unlike Napster, there is no suggestion that Veoh aims to encourage copyright infringement on its system. And, there is no evidence that Veoh can control what content users choose to upload before it is uploaded...unlike Napster (whose index was comprised entirely of pirated material), Veoh’s ability to control its index does not equate to an ability to identify and terminate infringing videos. For the most part, the files in question did not bear titles resembling plaintiff’s works; and, Io did not provide Veoh with its titles to search.”
Updated: Viacom came out with a statement as well: “Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement – conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA.” No, this isn’t the big one, but nonetheless an important precedent: A federal... more
-
-
bshipp
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Time for another roundup, and this one coincides with a notable first-year anniversary: that of Googles $1.65 billion acquisition of YouTube, confirmed on October 9th, 2006.
Since then, the name YouTube has become virtually synonymous with online video sharing. According to Comscore, the website maintains a sizable lead over competitors with 205,593,000 unique visitors per month. Second-place Yahoo Video trails with 48,026,000 visitors. But must YouTube remain the clear winner in the online video space? While they have certainly captured the largest audience - which may in the end be all they had needed to do to secure their position - we shouldnt underestimate the many other companies vying for mindshare.
These are the services we looked at: blip.tv, Brightcove.tv, ClipShack, Crackle, DailyMotion, Sony eyeVio, Google Video, Megavideo, Metacafe, Motionbox, Revver, Spike (ifilm), Stage6, Veoh, Viddler, Vimeo, Yahoo Video, and YouTube.Time for another roundup, and this one coincides with a notable first-year... more
-
