Monitored Alarm Systems

Know almost a year since the Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit remanded the case Viacom against YouTube for the district court. As we noted at the time, the initial decision of the district court, which stated that YouTube was protected by the DMCA safe harbors was a good decision, well motivated and sustained by the court. Instead, the decision of the appellate court is immersed in water very worrying. While agreeing with the district court that YouTube needed "specific" knowledge of infringing works, rather than "general" knowing that some work has been counterfeited, also entered the territory questionable arguing that YouTube could be convicted of "willful blindness" despite the DMCA does not include such a concept is also very clear that we need specific knowledge in the form of a notification under the DMCA.

On Friday, the last series of (slightly censored) submission of the case to the district court were revealed. They have shown in recent months, but the sensitive information was written and, finally, the "public" copies have already been released. Google, of course, essentially asked the Court to reaffirm its initial decision noted that, even after the Court of Appeal to dismiss, the situation has not changed: the process due to YouTube DMCA notification and removal and is protected by the DMCA safe zones 512 (c) (pdf). Google highlights how YouTube has followed the procedures for notification and withdrawal from the beginning, and even in the early days blocked some videos that we thought could be achieved. He also noted that Viacom itself took a lot of videos of the application after it finally registered to use contentid and realized it was beneficial own business Viacom. More importantly, as we have noted many times, many videos have been removed from the case because Viacom itself had downloaded

and had even "confidential (and evolving) Instructions to supervisor copyright" on what to remove from YouTube. Worse, apparently
still
Viacom has not completely solved if all the clips are more demanding were actually reached. Turns out many of them are identical
Viacom
these downloaded copies itself as authorized (and no evidence of Viacom often published with the same clips repeatedly goal itself). The bottom line: we do there is no way to know what Google Viacom was loaded on purpose or authorized unless notified directly. need Like DMCA secure ports. Not only that, but showing that Viacom knew this as a fact. Firstly, Viacom tried to buy YouTube itself, internal memos and Viacom executives said that "user-generated content seems to be what is driving" the success of YouTube and that consumption "branded content on YT is weak." YouTube also said that "a" many legal uses. Regarding the specific issues raised by the Court of Appeal, YouTube says that "willful blindness" applies, Viacom must prove that this specific demand clips have been involved in cases where there is evidence of willful blindness by YouTube. This is because the application is only clips in particular. If Viacom wants to go after a general voluntary blindness from YouTube, which is well beyond what the law allows - and the court is specific to this issue, noting that Viacom must show willful blindness to
specific violations

videos on demand.

But of course, Viacom did not bother to show

single test YouTube alleging willful blindness in for one of the clips on request. Instead, in his presentation of the opposition once again trying to rewrite the law in their favor, trying to create a ridiculously broad general "willful blindness" standard effectively erases the DMCA 512 (c) safe harbor . Firstly, it is almost entirely based on an email sent by a

employee of YouTube, in which he says there is a lot of crime on the site, but not name a specific video

. As noted, Google has to have someone say it is not infringing works on YouTube (a) shows which files should be deleted or (b) the works are in fact the same offense test (see : Viacom upload their own videos) or greater (c) show that YouTube does not remove infringing videos when learned that they infringed

. Viacom does not even try to show all these things. In addition, the fact that e-mail from a

-employee does not prove that

YouTube

knew specific offenses. As mentioned in the presentation:

The type of generalized conjecture that engages Viacom nothing like the demonstration of specific knowledge of the clips in suit claimed that the second circuit. In fact, the presentation Viacom is really amazing. After completely lost (district and appellate court) of his ridiculous assertion that "knowledge" of an offense in any part of the site led to lose safe harbors, Viacom is simply

try again the same argument

rather pretend that the "willful blindness" standard is basically a substitute for the "general knowledge". This makes no sense on many levels, and frankly, I'm surprised that expensive lawyers Viacom bother with this argument. The district court dismissed and the Court of Appeal was quite clear that Viacom needed to show willful blindness on specific issues rather than general.



is also completely reverse the burden of proof, arguing that while Viacom can prove the infringing works were in place
YouTube must demonstrate that "had no knowledge of these points of Viacom clips in the example." It's not really how the law works. Viacom argues that the DMCA requires proof in the negative. In addition, he argues that the lack of proof YouTube to deploy anti-piracy Viacom still wanted willful blindness. This is simply ridiculous. The DMCA has argued repeatedly, a
Find best price for : --Google----YouTube----Viacom--