Viacom’s schizophrenia over YouTube: the industry cries “serial killer!”

Does YouTube threaten the entertainment industry? On the one hand, Viacom and others will scream that it threatens the very livelihood of those who produce our entertainment. On the other, Viacom and others use it effectively to promote their products. And would you really prefer a regime that required YouTube to approve the legitimacy of every video uploaded to it? Frankly, it simply wouldn’t exist if that were required. To me it makes sense that if a copyright holder believes his copyright is being infringed by an online video, he can have it removed upon request. And if the person who uploaded the video believes the request is mistaken, he can ask Google to review it and make its determination at that point whether it will allow it to remain.

Moreover, history teaches that you should view with extreme skepticism the cries of alarm from the entertainment industry. In doing so, you likely would be doing them a favor.

As I wrote the other day in connection with the decision dismissing Viacom’s lawsuit against Google alleging copyright infringement for the posting on YouTube of videos infringing Viacom’s copyrights, As I wrote above, the existing regime makes sense to me and, as I wrote in that recent post,  ”[t]he decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights.” Viacom, of course, disagrees, stating in its press release:

We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

And those who represent the interests of large corporate copyright holders such as Viacom, like the Washington Legal Foundation (whose mission is to “champion free market principles [and] limited and accountable government”) argue that the decision allows Google “to exploit the statute’s safe harbors by designing an entire business model based on improperly profiting from copyrighted content.” Ronald Cass writes in Forbes that the decision is “broad enough to sink the protection copyright holders had enjoyed under the law.” And the Directors Guild of America claims its members’ very livelihoods are at stake:

We fear that the precedent established in this ruling, if not overturned by the appeals court, could result in a drastic rising tide of Internet theft that could decimate our members’ livelihoods, their pension and health plans, and their ability to continue creating the content that is beloved by people all over the world.

Reading these dire warnings you might not realize that as the judge stated in his decision Google took down the offending videos the day after Viacom delivered a mass takedown notice identifying the ones it claimed a copyright in. Nor would you realize that Viacom recognized the value of YouTube to its business by employing people to post its videos to YouTube to promote its productions while at the same time other Viacom employees were adding those same videos to the list for the takedown notice:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Fear that directors will have their livelihoods decimated and that the decision sinks copyright protection is of course, nothing new for an entertainment industry that can profit enormously from new technologies they demonize, so Viacom’s schizophrenia is, perhaps, progress over Hollywood’s reaction to the VCR, which was 100% self-destructive. In 1982, Jack Valenti, in sworn testimony before Congress , stated “that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” But, as Digital America explains, Valenti was not merely crying wolf — he was describing the greatest benefit to the movie industry in the last 40 years as a serial killer:

As the VCR became more important to the consuming public, the Hollywood establishment that fought it bowed to its inevitable benefits. In January 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded 5-4 that VCRs were legal products and that home taping of copyrighted works fell under the “fair use” exception to copyright. While Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), legislative attempts to codify the Betamax decision and fair video recording rights are still pending before Congress. CEA (at that time known as the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association), in cooperation with the Home Recording Rights Coalition, protected the legality of home recording and promoted the acceptance of the new technology.

Additionally Hollywood studios established home video divisions to reap the profits from a technology it once considered a threat. Blay’s idea sparked a retail revolution as hundreds of mom-and-pop video rental and sales stores popped up in every community in America. In 1987, video rental income reached $5.25 billion for the year, surpassing movie theater ticket sales for the first time. Today, movie studios regularly make more money on a film from home video sales and rentals than from the theatrical box office.

Judge Dismisses Viacom’s Lawsuit against Google for Infringing Videos Uploaded to YouTube.

Judge Louis L. Stanton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted Google’s motion for summary judgment (opinion and order embedded below) and dismissed Viacom’s lawsuit that alleged that that Google was liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for videos uploaded to YouTube that infringed Viacom’s copyrights because Google had “actual knowledge” and was “aware of facts and circumstances from which infringing activity [was] apparent” but failed to “act[] expeditiously to stop it, “received a financial benefit directly attirubutable to the infringing activity” and “had the right and ability to control such activity” and did not engage in these infringements solely by providing “storage at the direction of the user” or any other Internet function specificied in the DMCA.”

The decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights. The judge acknowledged that Viacom was right about its central contention: Google was “not only aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website.” (Opinion and Order at 6) Nonetheless, he also noted that Google designates an agent who, when he receives a takedown notice, “swiftly” removes infringing videos. (Id.)

The judge concluded that for Google to be liable under the DMCA Viacom would have to show more than that Google knew that infringing activity “in general” was occurring on YouTube because the DMCA does not require that degree of responsibility on service providers for the actions of its users:

To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.

By insulating service providers from liability for infringements by their users, the Judge Stanton concluded, the DMCA makes perfect sense because it would be far too burdensome for the service provider to make individual judgments on each of its user’s activities to determine whether those activities were infringing:

The infringing works . . . may be a small fraction of millions of works posted [on the service provider’s] platform, [and the service provider] cannot by inspection whether the use has been licensed by the owner, or whether its posting is a “fair use” of the material, or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting. The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition “safe harbor” protection on a “service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity . . . .”  (citations omitted)

Moreover, the fact Google took down over 100,000 videos within one business day in response to a single, mass take-down notice sent by Viacom was proof to Judge Stanton that the existing regime works perfectly well:

Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: when Viacom over a period ov months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.

Viacom v YouTube Summary Judgment

Challenging automated YouTube takedowns (and don’t forget to think through the ramifications)

Chris Walters at The Consumerist provides an excellent account of the whys and wherefores of takedowns of YouTube videos.  In addition to explaining why YouTube’s automated Content ID tracking system results in the kind of baseless deletions I referred to the other day, Walters also explains that “[Y]ou can dispute any Content ID claim. If you have a clip that’s been targeted, you’ll see a notice about it on your YouTube account page. From there you can access a dispute page where you can affirm that you believe your clip falls under fair use, and the clip will immediately become public again. The copyright holder will receive notice that you’ve disputed the clip, and must then decide to leave you alone, send a DMCA takedown notice, or sue.”

Importantly, too, he explains that you want to give some thought to the ramifications of disputing an automated takedown: “There are legal ramifications to this, which YouTube hints at and the EFF explains very clearly. If you decide to fight copyright abuse by a large company, you should make sure that you’re on the right side of the fight, that you have a sensible chance of winning a possible lawsuit, and that you’re willing to assume the financial risk. All three of those determinations probably require some serious meetings with a lawyer.”

On the other hand, any copyright owner sending a takedown notice ought to consider the legal ramifications of doing so, since a baseless one relying on the power to outspend an individual fair use claimant might have its own legal downside.

Preaching to the converted or trying to convince the unconvinced? They’re very different activities, and the former may well undermine the latter.

One does not persuade the undecided by means of name-calling and comparing oneself to the oppressed — one persuades the undecided with reasoned argument.

I’m not talking about healthcare — I’m talking about copyright and music again.

Ten days ago, a federal court granted Veoh’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Universal Music Group’s (“UMG”) lawsuit alleging that Veoh, which, like YouTube, allows users to share videos free of charge, for contributing to and inducing copyright infringement as a result of the uploading by Veoh users of copyrighted videos. A copy of the decision is available here.

The court concluded that Veoh’s efforts and policies to limit incidents of infringement and to work diligently to keep infringing works off its website satisfy the “safe harbor provisions” that shield it from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”). I am no expert on the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions (an FAQ on those provisions is available here), but the decision strikes me as a rather thorough exploration of the legal issues and of the evidence. Moreover, some of UMG’s arguments are downright specious, including what the court characterizes as its “first.” Typically — in fact, universally among effective lawyers — a lawyer makes his client’s strongest argument first.

UMG’s first argument was that  Veoh is not entitled to the safe harbor protections of the DMCA because it had “actual knowledge” that Veoh knew there were copyrighted videos on its website. UMG “proof” Veoh’s actual knowledge was that Veoh “knew that it was hosting an entire category of content—music—that was subject to copyright protection.” Slip op. at 14. The proof was hardly sufficient to the court, for reasons that seem, to me, persuasive:

First, the mere fact that Veoh was hosting material contributed by users that could be infringing cannot be proof of “actual knowledge” that there are infringing materials on the service because otherwise there would be no purpose to the safe harbor Congress created in the DMCA. “[V]ast portions of content on the internet are eligible for copyright protection (including plenty of materials posted on this site). Id. If one held providers like mine liable for allowing the use of materials by its users that could, if used improperly, be infringing, the internet as we know it would end.

In addition, it is unreasonable to interpret the DMCA to permit such proof to establish “actual knowledge” of infringement because if one were to accept UMG’s theory the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provisions would be “completely superfluous because any service provider that hosted copyrighted material would be disqualified from the section . . . safe harbor regardless of whether the copyright holder gave notice or whether the service provider otherwise acquired actual or constructive knowledge of specific infringements.” Courts will typically interpret statutes so that their interpretations will not make other parts of the statute meaningless. If Congress intended to create the notice-and-takedown procedures in one part of the statute, it wouldn’t be reasonable to interpret another part of the statute to make them meaningless.

Moreover, UMG made arguments that were refuted by the evidence, including the argument that “Veoh, of course, knew that it never had a license from any major music company to display music content and thus knew that all such content was unauthorized.” Id. (emphasis added) Unfortunately for UMG, its own evidence showed that “[a]mong the types of videos subject to copyright protection but lawfully available on Veoh’s system were videos with music created by users and videos that Veoh provided pursuant to arrangements it reached with major copyright holders, such as SonyBMG.”

Let me be clear — I have not researched the takedown-and-notice provisions of the DMCA to the degree that would make me feel reasonably certain that the court was correct in the decision it reached, but I am certainly persuaded by the reasoning it set forth in its opinion (and what I do know about those provisions) to be well along the way to that conclusion. I am, however, quite open to being convinced by those who would argue otherwise.

I am not convinced at all, however, by Chris Castle (a self-described journalist in the media and communications fields), who’s “first observations” about the decision consist entirely of name-calling, far-fetched analogies, and arguments I know are unfounded. He titles his post “Gideon’s Remix” and explains that he is comparing “independent artists and songwriters” hurt by the court’s decision to the defendant in Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established the right of criminal defendants to legal representation in their criminal proceedings. The defendant in Gideon had been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly stealing about $55 and a few bottles of beer from a pool room. He had been forced, due to his inability to afford a lawyer, to defend himself against the charges.

You better have some evidence of real hardship before you start comparing “independent artists and songwriters” to Clarence Earl Gideon, and you better realize that there is a world of difference between losing your freedom for 5 years and not being entitled to deny the opportunity for current technology to do the myriad of legitimate and enormously beneficial things it does.

Castle next writes that “[i]f the decision [is allowed] to stand, copyright becomes a Constitutional right without a remedy.” That’s odd. The law provides plenty of remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory awards that do not even require evidence that establishes any financial harm arising from the infringement.

I think Castle’s reasoning that Veoh’s activities allow infringement without a remedy might be illuminated by 2 other assertions he makes. First, he suggests that copyright infringement is no different than the theft of personal or real property:

And why limit the decision to the online world–why not extend the notice and shakedown concept to the physical world, too? Why not apply it to cars, or homes, or personal property generally? Why not make our offline economy into one big squat?

This argument is just plain silly. If someone steals a car, the damage is obvious — the owner no longer has the car to use or sell. If someone squats in an apartment you own, that’s property you cannot rent to someone else. But the fact that someone might have improperly posted a copyrighted song on Veoh doesn’t eliminate the fact that the vast majority of videos posted on Veoh are not infringing and are beneficial to Veoh’s users. Moreover, the “independent artists and songwriters” whose “property” is allegedly being misused have the legal power to stop the misuse, the right to sue the infringing Veoh user for damages (without showing harm), and the possession of the thing itself allegedly “stolen.”

Castle states too that leaving the recording companies (and the “independent artists and songwriters” he seems to equate to UMG) to find infringing materials is too great a burden to expect of them:

It seems an entirely unreasonable burden to force independent artists, songwriters, unions, directors, writers, record companies and film studios to search the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to find infringing copies of works that have not been licensed or approved for use.

I’m not convinced it is an unreasonable burden. It’s easy for me to find online any reference to me or my writings. And it may well be reasonable to impose that burden on me and all those “independent artists” (one might forget UMG was the plaintiff in the lawsuit) in exchange for the benefit of having sites like YouTube and Veoh and the like. Most importantly, the decision on whether, given the benefits provided to society by requiring copyright holders to send takedown notices to services like Veoh (rather than imposing on Veoh the burden of pre-clearing everything posted on its service) is a decision Congress made. If Castle thinks it was a bad judgment, his beef is with Congress, not the court that decided the Veoh case.

Castle also dismisses as a “canard” without any suggestion that there are merits to it the argument that the fair use of copyrighted materials on which a lot of the value on blogs, hosting sites, and search engines is grounded in the constitutional right to free speech. The plain fact is that copyright is a limitation on free speech — without the rights accorded for a limited time and for limited purposes to copyrighted materials, their use would be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the rights accorded by copyright necessarily must be balanced against free speech rights, and this principle is one that is no “canard” — it is well- and long-established as the basis of fair use.

Finally, Castle resorts to name calling. He calls Google “childish” for re-posting videos that it has removed the soundtrack from — something that as far as I can tell is a perfectly legitimate response to a legitimate takedown notice from the owner of the copyright in the soundtrack. He also calls Lawrence Lessig “creepy,” which I suppose is a step up from another post in which he calls Lessig “Lyndon Larouche.”

Again, though, you only gratify those who already believe Lessig is a creepy fascist by tossing around names like that, and anyone who does not already find glee in such ignorance will at best be unpersuaded; more likely, they’ll be turned off.

So is Veoh correctly decided? Castle has only made me feel more strongly that it was. But I remain open to reason.

The MPAA explains how to show DVD clips in the classroom (the easy way?)

More lobbying to ridicule! From Ars Technica comes a video shown by the Motion Picture Assocation of America to the U.S. Copyright Office as “part of the triennial DMCA exemptions review.”  

In the video, the MPAA suggests that teachers who want to use movie clips as part of their curricula should use a camcorder to record the movie off of a TV set, and that this is an acceptable way to use video clips without breaking a DVD’s copyright protections. 

Lessig’s Conversation of Remix – fair use? Warner Music doesn’t think so.

Lawrence Lessig’s lecture on remix culture, posted to YouTube, was the subject of a DMCA takedown notice by Warner Music. As Lessig explains, “Apparently, YouTube’s content-ID algorithm had found music in the video that they claimed ownership to.” The uploader’s protest to the takedown notice was apparently successful, which reinstates the video while Google reviews the legitimacy of the fair use claim against Warner Music’s copyright infringement claim.  Lessig’s blog post, along with the entirety of his lecture, is here.  Below is the segement that was blocked and is, for now, restored:

Here’s more on DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album. And more on Girl Talk here, here, and here.

Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity

The futility, and perhaps unconstitutionality, of locking down your digital creations

DRM (”Digital Rights Management,” a/k/a digital copy protection or digital locks) restricts the ways you can copy and distribute your digital media.  I’ve heard even artists suggest that advances in digital locks will solve the problems they think are posed by the ease with which digital media can now be duplicated and disseminated.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act,(the “DMCA”) purports to make it unlawful to override a CD or DVD’s digital copyright protection even if the copying of the copyrighted material is legitimate, non-infringing fair use.

I seriously doubt, however, that a court could impose liability under the DMCA on someone who evades DRM protection to copy material he subsequently uses for a legitimate, non-infringing use.  Fair use is grounded in the Constitution, both in (1) the “Copyright Clause,” which gives Congress the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” and (2) in the First Amendment protection of free speech.

In other words, fair use is a constitutional right, and constitutional rights cannot be infringed by mere legislation.

Not everyone agrees. Chris Soghoian writes that the creators of the Hillary’s Inner Tracy Flick video are in violation of the DMCA’s provision making it unlawful to copy material under DRM protection even though the video otherwise makes fair use of scenes from the movie Election. Thus, Soghoian concludes, if the creator of the video “used DVD-ripping software, its unencrypted, DRM-free copy of the work (which they would have needed to cut and paste bits into their mash-up) is in no way authorized. This means, unfortunately for [the video's creator], that it would have no fair-use defense, and could thus face a copyright infringement lawsuit.”

I don’t buy it.  Many, many digital forms of media state, in effect, that “no copying of the information contained herein is permitted by its creator for any purpose.” Standing alone, those statements are meaningless. Plainly, one can make unauthorized copies of information for many purposes. Nor could Congress pass a constitutionally effective law that purported to make those and similar statements enforceable. Again, if you have a constitutional right to copy and use copyrighted materials, a constitutional amendment would be required to take away that right.

I do not see why DRM protection, which can generally be cracked very easily, should, for fair use purposes, be treated any differently than a bare declaration that any copying is unlawful.  No statute can make enforceable mere declarations that unauthorized copies are illegal.  I really don’t see why an easily evaded digital lock is, for these purposes, any different.