Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Viacom v You Tube summary judgment motions unsealed

The motions by Viacom and YouTube for summary judgment, in Viacom v. YouTube, have been unsealed.

The arguments of the parties are summarized in their memoranda of law.

Viacom memorandum of law
YouTube memorandum of law

[Ed. note The Viacom memorandum of law, IMHO, is ludicrous.... not surprisingly since Viacom is represented by Jenner & Block. Their arguments if credited would mean that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not exist, and that every business which has relied upon it since inception is toast. Which would put the United States on a par with Zambia in world commerce and would put tens of millions of people -- the very people who are making the US even remotely competitive today -- out of work. If I were the Judge I would order plaintiff to show cause why its lawyers should not be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for making such a motion. -R.B.]

Keywords: lawyer 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


Anonymous said...

Ray, both of the links go to the plaintiff's brief; I doubt that was your intent.

However, even as a non-lawyer, I wouldn't even have to read the defendant's brief to conclude that the motion for partial summary judgment should be denied. I can't imagine Google not taking significant issue with many of the "facts" stated in the brief, and I don't see how there could not be legitimate issues to present to the trier of fact in this case. At trial, maybe things would be different, but there have to be disputed, relevant facts here.

- Andrew

mathinker said...

The link to Google's memorandum erroneously links again to Viacom's.

Anonymous said...

YouTube memorandum of law URL incorrect

raybeckerman said...

Thanks for bringing the error to my attention.

raybeckerman said...

Yes the plaintiff's motion is a non-starter. The defendant's motion should be granted.

raybeckerman said...

The link to YouTube's memo of law is fixed now. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

This is precisely the waste of time and money that many predicted the 2005 Grokster decision would lead to.

It's not a matter of whether YouTube's going to win this case. It's a matter of how much winning this case is going to cost.

And, if the court doesn't award YouTube its costs and fees, it'll be a matter of how much undue in terrorem leverage content owners will continue to wield as they demand ever more restrictions on new technologies.

raybeckerman said...

Matt you are 100% correct!

It is really important for the judge to slam Viacom and Jenner & Block for what they have done.

David Emery said...

The arguments on "storage" (IV.C) by Viacom are particularly bogus and alone strike me as pretty easy to defeat.

J. said...

Wow, Viacom completely twists the language of the DMCA statute. By arguing that the DCMA safeharbor is closed to a service provider with actual knowledge but who DOES NOT ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY to stop it, they are reading the takedown notice requirement out of the explicit statutory wording. What the statute requires is that UPON NOTICE, rather than UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE, that the infringer must take down allegedly infringing content. This is pretty blatantly misleading.