not counting Blogger or YouTube.  Sort of like “bad old YouTube” that got $1.8 As the web has grown, we have seen a growing number of issues relating to infringing content. We respond expeditiously to requests to remove such content from our services, and have been improving our procedures over time. The answer?  Ah yes. 

Now that sounds extreme and it largely is, except for one particular example now being debated in the Canadian parliament–the user-generated-content or “UGC” exception in the new Canadian copyright law (“ Bill C-32 “). Ever try searching for “Casablanca full movie” on YouTube?  Say buh bye.

Sort of like “bad old YouTube” that got $1.8 billion or so for the infringers and paid zero to the creators out of that sales price–being sued in a class action led by the Premier League and also by Viacom–and “groovy new YouTube” which has something of a détente with rich rights holders but which more or less ignores indies.).

Sort of like “bad old YouTube” that got $1.8 billion or so for the infringers and paid zero to the creators out of that sales price–being sued in a class action led by the Premier League and also by Viacom–and “groovy new YouTube” which has something of a détente with rich rights holders but which more or less ignores indies.).

Sort of like “bad old YouTube” that got $1.8 billion or so for the infringers and paid zero to the creators out of that sales price–being sued in a class action led by the Premier League and also by Viacom–and “groovy new YouTube” which has something of a détente with rich rights holders but which more or less ignores indies.).

YouTube. few thoughts: 1) A disappointing opinion Put aside, for a moment, whatever you may think of Judge Stanton's ultimate holding absolving YouTube of copyright infringement. What about all the evidence of specific -- not just general -- knowledge on YouTube's part of infringing Viacom works on its system? 512(c)(1)(A)(ii).

YouTube case the attention they deserve. It all comes down to specificity If there's one legal issue that I believe will determine the outcome of the case, it's this: How specific must YouTube's knowledge of infringement be in order for it to fall outside the safe harbor provided by Section 512(c) of the DMCA ? YouTube Motion at 39.

Today, kids produce lip dubs in just a few hours and mass distribute them to millions worldwide through viral video websites like YouTube. With over 3 million hits on YouTube and publicity from news outlets and blogs like this one, The Black Eyed Peas could never have garnered that kind of exposure on their own. Veoh or UMG v.

billion YouTube/Google history that should be of interest to all the members in the class action as well as those who have yet to see a dime from Google for the past, present or future use of their work. And for you Veoh fans out there, this case is in the 2nd Circuit, not the Temporary Autonomous Zone.) are in a whole new area.

YouTube for print, a Houston financial writer has sued Scribd.com for copyright infringement, purporting to represent a class of authors who allege their works have been illegally copied, re-formatted, and displayed by the popular document-hosting service. In what could be Viacom v. There are two ways the documents get into the CMS database.

I note that the quotations from Fred von Lohman, the Mystic Knight of the EFFluviati, that appeared in the press on the Veoh case were somewhat guarded. The industry sentiment regarding Veoh reminds me of reaction to the lower court decisions in Grokster —this simply cannot be the law. And sure enough, it turned out not to be.

By Eriq Gardner A California district court has given Veoh a big victory in defending claims by Universal Music Group that the video sharing website didn't do enough to police copyrighted content on its servers. Tags: Copyright Decisions Roundup Litigation Piracy YouTube Federal judge Howard Matz ruled.

Here's the issue: if the subject of a DMCA takedown notice sends a counternotice, and the copyright owner declines to sue within the statutory 10-14-business-day window, do YouTube and similar hosts have a legal obligation to re-post the allegedly infringing material? Warning: this post will soon head deep, deep into the DMCA weeds.

The February 2009 edition of the ABA Journal has a long article by attorney Steven Seidenberg titled "Copyright in the Age of YouTube." Get that infringing piece of *&#$(@* off YouTube this second!" Rather, UMG asserts that the notice was sent only pursuant to YouTube's terms of service. YouTube politely declined.

By Eriq Gardner If lawyers for content owners aren't careful, they risk putting case law on the books that will hinder their ability to get tough on pirates. few months ago, the user-generated website Veoh won an important victory. Tags: Piracy YouTube