Google’s move in purchasing YouTube for $1.65 billion, may be much costlier than it paid for. Viacom, which controls such media brands as CBS, MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, is suing Google for copyright infringement over YouTube clips found in the net.
According to media giant, Viacom, such use of its copyrighted materials are in clear violation of copyright laws. Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 of its video clips. Not only that, Viacom is also suing Google in the Manhattan federal court for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and is demanding $ 1 billion in damages.
If Viacom wins, Google will lose billions in its investment in YouTube. According to experts, Google will most probably argue that YouTube is covered by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under said statute, a “safe harbor” provision is created for ISP providers so much so that they couldn’t be sued for infringement merely by transmitting or posting copyrighted materials. The reasoning behind this was that it wasn’t fair for the “secondary” infringer, the ISP, to be held responsible since it was just an intermediary.
The question right now is whether or not this defense will hold considering the extent of copyrighted materials being “infringed” by YouTube. If judgment is rendered against Google, YouTube might end up like Kazaa and Napster. Whatever the outcome this case may bring, it would bring light to questions involving copyright infringement.
by bryan tan
According to media giant, Viacom, such use of its copyrighted materials are in clear violation of copyright laws. Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 of its video clips. Not only that, Viacom is also suing Google in the Manhattan federal court for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and is demanding $ 1 billion in damages.
If Viacom wins, Google will lose billions in its investment in YouTube. According to experts, Google will most probably argue that YouTube is covered by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under said statute, a “safe harbor” provision is created for ISP providers so much so that they couldn’t be sued for infringement merely by transmitting or posting copyrighted materials. The reasoning behind this was that it wasn’t fair for the “secondary” infringer, the ISP, to be held responsible since it was just an intermediary.
The question right now is whether or not this defense will hold considering the extent of copyrighted materials being “infringed” by YouTube. If judgment is rendered against Google, YouTube might end up like Kazaa and Napster. Whatever the outcome this case may bring, it would bring light to questions involving copyright infringement.
by bryan tan
No comments:
Post a Comment