Who Controls the Internet? : The Second Circuit on YouTube
On appeal to the Second Circuit, Viacom attempted to distinguish YouTube and other "media" sites from Hotmail and other "private" storage sites (Viacom, 2011, 38). Viacom had also pointed out that You Tube was disqualified from asserting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor because it obtained a direct financial benefit from users visiting the site to find unlicensed "premium" copyrighted material, and to view it without permission (Viacom, 2011, 25-34). Moreover, Viacom alleged that YouTube employees featured popular music or music videos on the site in order to maximize viewership, and targeted advertisements to unlicensed copyrighted videos (Viacom, 2011, 36). In their brief as amici curiae supporting Viacom, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) argued that YouTube should be found liable for copyright infringement because its founders encourage the uploading of popular copyrighted video in order to become a destination site that could be sold at a high price to a larger company such as Google, that they were aware of patterns of infringement that they did nothing about, and they derived a direct financial benefit from these patterns of infringement (MPAA and IFTA, 2011, 1-31).
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon
Computer and Internet, Law and legislation, Media and the Law, Science and Technology
Internet Law | Law | Legislation
Hannibal Travis, Who Controls the Internet? : The Second Circuit on YouTube, in CYBERSPACE LAW :CENSORSHIP AND REGULATION OF THE INTERNET, (Hannibal Travis ed., 2013).