Things are not going well for Universal Music Group’s in its lawsuit against video-sharing site Veoh. First, the Los Angeles judge, A. Howard Matz, ruled last month that the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act do apply to the case, contrary to UMG’s request for summary judgment.
On Monday, Veoh scored another point in the preliminary legal sparring that always precedes the main event. The same judge threw out the part of the complaint that named Veoh’s investors as defendants in the suit. UMG had tried to argue that Shelter Capital, Spark Capital, and Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company were guilty of “vicarious copyright infringement” and “inducement of copyright infringement” (yes, those are actual crimes) because they effectively control the company and sit on its board.
UMG cited as its precedent a case involving Napster and its then-single investor Bertelsmann, which actually was found guilty of vicarious copyright infringement, but only because Bertelsmann chose to keep Napster running even after it was obvious that it was an infringing service.
Judge Matz noted in his ruling that Veoh has so far not been found guilty of any copyright infringement, and his previous position on the DMCA’s protections shows that he understands the difference between users infringing copyright and Veoh. He also ruled that the mere act of being an investor or board member of a company facing copyright issues and fulfilling those normal duties does not constitute infringement, even if the company they “control” is found guilty.
Merely exercising ownership power to select members for a Board of Directors cannot invite derivative liability for infringement. Nor is there a common law duty for investors (even ones who collectively control the Board) “to remove copyrighted content,” in light of the DMCA. . . . these descriptions of how the Investor Defendants exercised control are the equivalent of “plain vanilla” characterizations of what directors ordinarily do . . . and are expected to do.
Rather, the board members and investors have to go out of their way to encourage copyright infringement. Yet if you read the ruling (embedded below), it is clear that Shelter and the other investors were doing everything they could to get rid of and filter out infringing content.
If this ruling and the last one are any indication, Universal Music Group has a tough road ahead as it presents its central case.
I don’t like Veho.com, rather YouTube
You might want to check your brain for tumors.
nice.
Incredible that they would attempt to sue the investors and/or founders. Didn’t they attempt to sue Shawn Fanning as well and get rejected?
This is great news for Veoh and for the online vid space as a whole. Hopefully this case will make it clear once and for all that big media companies can no longer use bullying tactics to get their way.
Thank you honorable judge. Suck it UMG.
The next post will show same ting.. only about HULU and it will say: “no… you cannot sue HULU! They are aliens! ” lol
HULU is the entertainment industries blue eyed boy!
cooljobsalways
http://tinyurl.com/7uj5ay
Direct, contributory and vicarious…..
its every which way from Sunday —-
Sounds like a whining….
Judge gonna’ be fining
one side’s gonna’ be shining
on fine meals someone will be dining
pockets with money will be lining
from this copyright mining
for the simple days will they be pining
a big check someone will be signing
most off….quit your whining’ !!!!
What’s the point with this Scribd widget??? It’s IMPOSSIBLE to read! It’s WORSE than USELESS!
you might want to check your brain for tumors
Finally we have a judge who understands technology
Your assumption overarching this story is fundamentally wrong.
Such “in-process” decisions don’t tell anything about what the final judgement will be. Judges tend to be very good at stripping a case down to the core issues and potentially liable parties.
You can always easily spot the traditional media outlets that are currently in a financial and creative mess they seem to always be the first ones ready to sue because of their shaky grasp on the future. If it was not Veoh it would be another online video outlet these lawsuits will not stop the rise of online video which is growing faster than social networking look at the numbers:
http://www.ebiz.../articles/video
Well, vicarious infringement and inducement aren’t exactly “crimes,” but who’s really concerned about semantics when it’s so easy to just complain about Big Media.