Comments on: The Uses of the DMCA: Viacom v. YouTube

By: Marc Sacks

Marc Sacks — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:59:58 +0000

Does a site like YouTube have to take down content just because somebody claims it’s infringing? I think at least a “show me the copyright” should be required even under present circumstances. Viacom could otherwise claim anything they don’t like (a “Viacom Sucks” movie, for example) is their intellectual property (unless of course it belongs to some other conglomerate).

How is a site supposed to know what to take down without getting a list of copyrights, presumably supplied by Viacom?

By: crack

crack — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:53:31 +0000

I think Youtube is actually a very bad thing in the copyright wars. Its a media broadcaster that steals content. It is detrimental to fair use on an individual level.

Youtube claiming safe harbor status clouds the issue and actually risks damaging true providers such as ISPs.

By: TF

TF — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:24:21 +0000

Prof. Seltzer,

I think your post is too glib, and light on legal analysis. The DMCA safe harbor YouTube will invoke, 512(c), has three elements, of which notice-and-takedown compliance is only one. Lack of knowledge and no financial benefit with control are the other two. Given YouTube’s compliance, I doubt Viacom will attack them on the third element, but will instead focus on the facts or circumstances prong of the first element. YouTube needs all three elements after all.

I’m sorry, but claiming Viacom is “reneging on the bargain” reeks more of spin doctoring than legal analysis.

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:31:21 +0000

I am not so sure about Viacom not following the DMCA. To gain safe harbor, platforms have to do certain things, and I am not sure if YouTube really qualifies for safe harbor.

Here is a listing for safe harbor http://moonsview.blogspot.com/2007/03/viacom-vs-youtube.html

Would love to have an actual legal review, but seems to me that YouTube could be in trouble.