Blog: Veoh v. Universal Music Case
In September, a federal district court ruled that Veoh, a Web video online service provider, was under safe harbor from copyright lawsuits filed by numerous entertainment companies over the past several years. U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that Veoh was not liable for the copyright infringements of its users because of the automated process of uploading the videos to the internet and due to the measures that Veoh undertook to ensure that infringing material was removed from the website as quickly as possible.
Universal Music Group filed the suit against Veoh in 2007 for copyright infringement; however the judge ruled that Veoh was granted protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Enacted in 1998, DMCA legislation made it a criminal activity to produce and distribute technology with copyrighted labels. However, within this act there was a safe harbor clause that could be applied to cases such as the one that Veoh represented in the District Courts. This safe harbor clause claims that if online service providers follow certain guidelines, such as immediately taking down infringing material, the online service provider will be safe from copyright liability. Judge Matz ruled that Veoh was immune from liability because they quickly removed infringing material when the owners sent a takedown notice to the online video provider.
While the recession has greatly impacted the success of Veoh’s business, the Veoh court decision has larger ramifications because it can be used as a precedent for YouTube in the $1 billion copyright suit filed by Viacom. YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levine has stated, “This decision reaffirms the judicial consensus and what we’ve known all along: the DMCA protects services like YouTube.”[i] The suit against YouTube presented by Viacom is not expected to reach trial until next year; however it seems that the precedent for the case has been established by the Veoh case landmark ruling. That is, Judge Matz’ ruling moves in the direction of boiling them all down to a single test of whether the service provider has immediately and expeditiously complied with the takedown rules.
[i] Sandoval, Greg. “Veoh wins copyright case; YouTube wins, too?” Cnet News. CBS Interactive, 14 Sept. 2009. Web. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10352183-93.html>.
No related posts.
Recent Blog Articles
- Conference — Worldwide Patent Statistics for Forecasting Technology-Related Activities
- October 27 & 28 – Free Inventors Conference Presented by USPTO
- Native American Artists and Craftsman: GAO Discusses Violations and Lack of US Enforcement
- Trademark Monitoring Scam: Don’t get dooped
- Obama administration proposes stricter IP laws
- Are you getting sued? What getting a Cease and Desist letter means for you.
- What does ‘Use in Commerce’ mean in your USPTO trademark application?
- FCC issues new Net Neutrality rules
- USPTO Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program: Lay-A-Way Option Available to December 7, 2011
- The Battle over Network Neutrality May Finally Be Hitting Your Monthly Bill as Comcast and Netflix Provider Spar
- Facebook Continues its Litigation Trend – The Next Target: Lamebook
- Calculating Damages for Copyright Infringement
- Architectural Copyrights – When a building is more than the sum of its parts.
- Rosetta Stone Gears up for a Battle Against Google and the Future of Adwords
- New Rules Proposed on Gene Patenting
- 4chan and the Internet Dispense Justice as They See Fit
- A Thin Line Between Artistry and Architecture
- Speech Crimes: How talking on the Internet can get you into trouble
- Virginia Imagination Made Real EXPO for Innovators
- Trademark Abbreviations & The Public Use Doctrine
- American Indian (4)
- Business (69)
- Charities (1)
- Copyright Articles (34)
- Architecture (1)
- Government Contracting (9)
- Internet (2)
- Inventor & Entrepreneur Updates (64)
- law (22)
- Online Privacy (11)
- Patent Articles (50)
- Press release (6)
- trademark (25)
- Trademark Articles (28)
- U Decide (1)
- Uncategorized (14)