Video Killed the Radio Star
I treated Tacky Prom like a concert (because it was), snagged a spot at the foot of the stage and went wild.
February 2012
8 posts
The best of places
I’m in a very happy place of having 450 photos to edit and curate. It’s a project I can’t WAIT to embark on — but due to a very very busy week (oh, silly law school writing obligations) I haven’t had the time.
So — soon: first wide angle shots and tacky prom. But first: finishing this brief!
Happy 23.5 to me
In celebration of my half birthday, this will be arriving on Wednesday.
I figure I’ve waited long enough. (And the influx of Mardi Gras excitement is reminding me it’s been a year since my last lens purchase.)
Complications: I tried to purchase through a website and was defrauded for my first attempt. Thanks to the good people at American Express (seriously, they have made a customer for life out of me), all is fine and this baby will now be coming via Amazon Prime, a site I believe is actually legitimate. …. right?
Can’t wait to experiment!
Changing my mind
Lately, I’ve been hyper aware of how I’m reasoning through problems, feelings, and miscellaneous thoughts.
“Want to make a $10,000 bet?”
—Professor Terry Fisher, on the 1% and the diminishing marginal utility of money, Cambridge, MA
“For your assignment, you have to explain this aspect of copyright law to someone. Your roommate law student doesn’t count. You have to find a layperson…if you still know any.”
—Professor Terry Fisher, bolstering our confidence, Cambridge, MA
YouTube v. Viacom
Yesterday I had the privilege of hearing Michael Fricklas, the EVP/GC/Secretary of Viacom, give a talk that was meant to be a discussion on regulating global media. In the end, his discussion was a brief history on the Viacom v. Youtube litigation still pending in SDNY. Since the case so clearly concerns what we’re talking about in class, I thought it was deserving of some discussion — Mr. Fricklas’s perspective was rather interesting.
The short story is that Viacom sued Youtube and Google for knowingly making available somewhere in the ballpark of 150,000 copyrighted clips. According to Mr. Fricklas, this resulted in damages of $1 billion. The legal questions at bar were (1) who the actor was here, and (2) how specific YouTube’s knowledge of the copyrighted material had to be to consistute “willful blindness” (among some others issues as well).
Like in the Cartoon Network case for this coming week, the defendant (YouTube) argued that it was not the actor — it was not making copies and making them publicly available, but instead each user was committing the infringement on the YouTube “machine.” Indeed, Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a safe harbor for OSPs and ISPs as long as they comply with the safe harbor guidelines and respond to take-down notices about infringing material (and YouTube does comply with such requests, as we have all seen over the years). Viacom said there was a grouping of rulings holding such “machines” liable for infringement when they are found to have induced it (and Mr. Fricklas said that YouTube execs “knew that copyrighted material was driving their traffic”). The court ended up ruling for YouTube on this issue, saying that the DMCA protected YouTube from the vicarious liability that Viacom was alleging.
The specificity that Google/YouTube argued was required in order for YouTube to be liable for infringement (through “willful blindness”) was specific knowledge of specific clips available on the site. The court found no evidence of such specific knowledge, though Mr. Fricklas told us that there were emails amongst YouTube executives discovered, talking about specific copyrighted clips.
After the District Court ruling, Viacom appealed the decision — oral argument took place a few months ago regarding the applicability of the DMCA. Viacom insisted it could provide a safe harbor only for pure storage mechanisms, but was YouTube’s “Broadcast Yourself” service simply storage? Mr. Fricklas mentioned that they specifically curate their licensed apps (what you see on your iPhone YouTube app isn’t everything available on the site — they affirmatively pick and choose). Additionally, “willful blindness” would limit the DMCA applicability (and that blindness can be displayed by the existence of reasonable tools to deal with the infringements which results in a responsibility to do something about it).
The decision is set to come out any day now. I may be inclined to side with Viacom on this issue — I don’t think YouTube is just a storage mechanism — but the way this was all explained was from a very Viacom-interested perspective, obviously. And Mr. Fricklas ended his conversation by saying that the people who hate SOPA are people who “hate economics and think content should be free,” which was, to say the least, a disputable characterization.
Enjoyed it — and differences in opinions are always fun to hear. And so applicable to copyright class!
“If you want to go fast, buy a Porsche. A Ferrari…a Ferrari just looks good.”
—Professor Terry Fisher, imparting necessary lawyer knowledge, Cambridge, MA
