Thursday, August 28, 2008

Io v. Veoh copyright case dismissed based on video-sharing website's compliance with DMCA

Thanks to Kip Patterson for bringing this to my attention.

In a California copyright infringement case, Io Group v. Veoh Networks, the Court has granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), holding that the defendant's video-sharing web site complied with the DMCA and was entitled to the protection of the statute's "safe harbor" provision.

In its 33-page decision, the Court noted, among other things, that the DMCA was "designed to facilitate the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age", and rejected that plaintiff's contention that Veoh had failed to reasonably impement its notification policy for repeat offenders.

Interestingly, Viacom -- which is suing YouTube in Viacom v. YouTube in a very similar case -- tried to submit an amicus curiae brief in Io v. Veoh; Judge Lloyd denied its request.

August 27, 2008, Order and decision granting defendant's motion for summary judgment
Order denying Viacom motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot (Finnish language version)

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Jadeic said...

I can't wait for the trail of lobbyists clutching draft amendments to the DMCA to withdraw the safe harbour provision on the grounds that it is stifling creativity.


Anonymous said...

Would this mean that the RIAA must first send you a DMCA-compliant takedown notice to remove infringing music files - and if you comply then they can't sue you?

{The Common Man Asking}

Nohwhere Man said...

I'm only part way through, but this jumped out at me:

There is no material dispute that, while IP addresses identify a particular computer connected to the Internet, they do not distinguish between users (e.g., family members) who may share the same computer. See generally Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.Com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 575 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (IP addresses “are a series of numbers that are used to specify the address of a particular machine connected to the Internet.”) (emphasis added[and removed]). (footnote 8)

8- The court takes judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of “IP address” as to the fact that an IP address may be shared by multiple users. This is not a matter that is subject to reasonable dispute. [emphasis added]

That ought to shake up a few people.

Anonymous said...

IP addresses do not identify a computer. IP addresses are assigned to a computer and are linked to a MAC address which supposedly identifies a machine. Problem with that is the MAC address can be spoofed as well.

It is probable that a machine can be linked to a certain IP / MAC but not definite.

I really wonder how any electronic data can be used in a court of law.

Unknown said...

It would btw, make the most sense. Especially when dealing with small home users.

Send a DMCA take down notice.
Send a DMCA request to have all illegally downloaded song files deleted.

As proof, I think a screenshot of your Itunes shop, and perhaps a picture showing all the cds that you own?

Though, that is a problem. I have never downloaded a song from a filesharing place. I burned my own songs, or bought them from Itunes or Musicmatch(maythey rot in heck). But, I don't necessarily haev all the cd's anymore. My kids have destroyed quite a few. Yet, I have all those files on my pc. A cunundrum.

Musicmatch, was bought by yahoomusic. Unfortunately, they lost my account information, so now all my bought songs, are worthless, as I can't listen to them without being able to log on.

raybeckerman said...

I feel terrible but I just rejected a very well written comment by mistake.

Whoever submitted it can you please resubmit it?

Anonymous said...

Wellm I hope that it was I that was "well-written"

The the decision there is this passage:

"Here, Io has presented no evidence that a repeat infringer has, in fact, established a new
account under false pretenses, much less that Veoh has intentionally allowed that to happen. Its
supposition about the hypothetical possibility that a repeat infringer may have done so is not
evidence. There is no indication that Mr. Ruoff is a repeat infringer who should have been
blocked; and, the fact that he was able to open a second account does not give rise to a genuine
issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of Veoh’s implementation."

The judge clearly recognized that the plantiff (Ruoff) could not have been a repeat offender. To an engineer that sounds very much like the appropriate logic for the mediasentry/RIAA downloads.

Kip Patterson

Anonymous said...


One could use very similar logic to shoot down the RIAA assertion that P2P music sharing is "continuous and ongoing", and slam them for claiming such with no evidence beyond a snapshot or two that it was detected at these times. The rest is complete supposition and lies.


Anonymous said...


A bit OT, but it is about video file sharing. Check out this article as yet another brick in the wall of wrong ISP accountholder identifications by the Hollywood movie copyright (keystone) cops:


Juliette said...

I think RIAA needs to find a better way to protect itself from pirates. As Anonymous said MAC address can be spoofed and it's hard to find a good way to "unspoof" it. Well, I am pretty sure nothing is impossible, but it's time and money consuming. Maybe that the reason why recent lawsuit went up to almost two million of bucks for illegal download. :-)
I don't know... If RIAA is given to much freedom to track each person, that ruins privacy, but if not, than pirates take advantage of it. It's a dead end for now...