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.