Attempts to Control the Downloading of Copyright Material - Essay Example

?Viacom vs. Google [The of the will appear here] [The of the will appear here] [The of the ] Introduction In today’s world where everything is possible over the internet and as internet has grown up to one of the most powerful entities, a number of problems have arisen. These relate with all kinds of crime called cyber crimes. One such issue that is raised as a result of the reach of internet is copyright issues. A large number of users and corporations download and upload creative content without realizing its implication on their own legal and moral principles and the implication on the corporations who spend their time and money creating the content for their own commercial usage. One such case involved two media giants that include Google and Viacom. Google is a new media technology giant that owns and operates numerous websites including YouTube. On YouTube, users upload, share and view content that has been criticized by various corporations for including copyright material. Viacom raised a similar claim against YouTube saying that Google users constantly upload and view Viacom copyright content and Google earns profit through such contents. Viacom made a claim of one billion dollars against Google. Google did not deny the claim that users upload copyrighted content. Google counterclaimed that is was working under legal jurisdiction by following Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provisions. Finally, Google won the case based on this claim. In this paper, we attempt to focus on this particular case of Viacom vs. Google and discuss the regulatory issues that have arisen from this issue. We would be analyzing this case and the factors that influence these regulatory issues. Viacom vs. Google Viacom vs. Google is one of the most discussed and important cases in the recent era that concern with copyright issues and their regulation. Both media giants came at a clash with each other over the content posted on Google’s YouTube. YouTube is a subsidiary of Google that operates as a leading social networking site where users can post upload, share and view photos. While most of the content viewed on YouTube is uploaded by individuals, corporations have also used the website to promote their own content. These include other media giants such as BBC, CBS, and CNN etc. Google generates great amount of revenue from the website since it is the leading video uploading and viewing website. Though video sharing, uploading and viewing is free on the website, the website generates money through the advertisements posted on the right hand corner of the website. However, YouTube has been under great scrutiny due to the fact that it is unable to manage the content being uploaded on its website. Numerous companies including Viacom have filed lawsuits against Google for being unable to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material on the website. Even though, the website warns against uploading videos containing any copyright issues but strict action against the issue is yet to be taken. The legal law suit that Viacom filed against Google demanded an amount of 1 billion dollars in damages due to the copyrighted content placed on YouTube that belonged exclusively to Viacom. These clips included episodes of Viacom’s favorite shows including South Park, SpongeBob Square Pants, and The Colbert Report. Viacom argued that it found more than ‘160,000 clips of its programming have been available on YouTube and that they had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times’ (Peters, 2007). Viacom further demanded that the court take serious action against Google to prevent it from posting other such videos on their YouTube website. Main regulatory issues The argument presented by Viacom is accurate on a variety of aspects. This case does indeed raise certain regulatory issues, most important among which is the issue of presenting copyrighted material. The UK copyright law allows certain kinds of works to be copyrighted. These include literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, typographical, sound recording, films and broadcast and cable programs. The copyrighted work of Viacom in question falls under the last category which is broadcast and cable programs. Copyrights allow the owner of the work to file a case when their work is copied without their consent and is later used for commercial purposes. It is also restricted to adapt the work in any way. Even when using the work for private use, the user has to identify the owner of the work. The Copyright law allows the copying of the material for private, education, critical, reporting and other non-commercial usage. In the case of YouTube posting the copyright content of Viacom, the main issue raised was the fact that YouTube was posting Viacom content on their website for commercial usage. Though, they were identifying the work of the owner in majority of the cases, Viacom was not benefiting monetarily from the content available on the website. Even as Google is able to earn profit from the Viacom content, Viacom does not benefit from the venture. Ahrens explores the issue by pointing out that ‘when a video clip from "The Daily Show," for instance, has been viewed thousands of times on YouTube that becomes an economic issue to Viacom’ (Ahren, 2007). This issue began when Google acquired YouTube in 2006 for 1.65 billion dollars and Google later claimed that Viacom also wanted to acquire YouTube. Viacom previously had asked Google to take action against users uploading copyright content on their website. However, Google did not facilitate Viacom to its full extent. Even though Google asked users to stop uploading copyright material, it did not take any strict action against these users which ultimately led to Viacom filing the case. Position of Google Google presented its own argument to defend the claim made against YouTube. Google claimed that the content that Viacom was objecting against had been removed long ago from the website. In a emailed statement, Google wrote, ‘All that is left of the Viacom lawsuit that began as a wholesale attack on YouTube is a dispute over a tiny percentage of videos long ago removed from YouTube’ (Glovin and Jeffrey, 2012). Furthermore, Google has also introduced a new policy whereby users are not allowed to upload copyright material. And incase if Google is aware of any infringements by a user, they would block the access of that user in the website (Smith, 2007). The main argument that Google presented, however, focused on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision. Google argued that it was complying with this act and thus cannot be sued for copyright infringements. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision that falls under Section 512 of the Act, states that internet service providers are not liable for the content uploaded by the users. This is also called the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA). This is because online service providers allow support for millions of users and they cannot be held responsible for the work of one individual since it would be impossible to monitor the heavy amount of data available all over the internet. This immunity is only accessible for online service providers and since Google is an online service provider, it can use this act for its advantage (Landy and Mastrobattista, 2008). Google further claimed that the spirit of Web 2.0 was to share and share alike. The World Wide Web allows users to come together and share a variety of material. This material could very well be copyrighted material and it would be next to impossible for service providers such as Google to keep a track on the material available online. Also the claim made by Viacom does not suit the spirit of the web that connects users through sharing and communicating. Google further added that other copyright material is also available on YouTube from different channels and these channels do not seem to object to the material. Rather these owners consider it as a way of promoting their content and Viacom should also adopt the same spirit of the World Wide Web. Decision The decision went in favor of Google and YouTube due to the presence of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision. This provision allowed Google to be protected from all kinds of copyright liability. However, Google would be held responsible for content that they had knowingly uploaded or they had knowledge of. Since Google is huge media giant, it could not be expected to have knowledge of all the content. Furthermore, Viacom would not able to prove such a claim therefore the ruling was made in favor of Google (Reuters, 2012). Also YouTube did not have any legal duty to keep a track of the content posted on their website therefore they cannot be held responsible for uploads of their users. If Viacom could prove that Google had promoted users to upload such content so that they may benefit from the clips, then only could Google have been held liable for the content (Nikoltchev, 2007). The decision made by the court was seen as a win for internet service providers all over the World Wide Web. If YouTube had been removed from the internet, it would have been an issue for both internet service providers and the users accessing such websites. Internet has been able to enjoy such popularity because of the presence of sharing and with this win, sharing is again promoted. Discussion The safe harbor provision of the DMCA was developed keeping in view its impact of internet generally. When the World Wide Web gained popularity, these provisions were introduced so that the Internet was bloom as a whole and connect users from all over the world. This safe harbor, however, did not extend towards the non-service providers since they would be aware of the content being uploaded on their website and thus would be directly infringing copyright laws. The inability of the service providers to manage the content is what led Google to come out safe. Viacom argued that YouTube is not a service producer just as Google was. However, YouTube is indeed a service provider as it allows users to not just upload videos but also view related content etc (Lopez-Tarruela, 2012). However, on the other side of the spectrum, we have to understand that this case does blur the lines of ownership of copyright material over the internet. It robs the original creators of the material, of their rights over their property. Since the property was created by the owners, it is their right to define the distribution of the content. Service providers such as Google rob the original owners over their right to the property. However, Google has tried to take the issue seriously and developed an anti-piracy tool whereby owners can send their copyrighted content to Google to prevent it from being posted over the internet (Scott, 2008) In a way, both the companies could benefit from this possibility of online sharing. Viacom could allow Google the rights to its property and get a share of the revenues earned. When Viacom would upload its content on YouTube, it would discourage other users to upload the same content. Viacom could also get an increased rating of its program by increased exposure on the internet. It could link its website to various YouTube videos showing Viacom content. In this way, both Google and Viacom could benefit in the long run. Conclusion With the advent of the internet and the World Wide Web, the traditional boundaries of copyright material have been blurred. The web provides an atmosphere of easy sharing and uploading and this creates issues for content owners such as Viacom. Viacom attacked Google since it believed that it was being negatively impacted by its content being available on YouTube that decreased original program rating. YouTube was the one primarily benefiting from the content that users uploaded by posting ads on their website. However, Google claimed that it could not possibly be asked to monitor and regulate all user content as it was impossible for Google to do so being an internet service provider. Google took protection under the Safe Harbor Provision of DCMA and was able to win the case on this provision only. Even though YouTube refuted the provision of various grounds, they were still able to allow Google to manage its content to a great extent. References Ahrens, F. 2007. Viacom Sues YouTube over Copyright, The Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300595.html Glovin, D. and Jeffrey, D. 2012. Viacom’s Copyright Suit Against Google’s YouTube Reinstated, Washington Post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/viacoms-copyright-suit-against-googles-youtube-reinstated/2012/04/06/gIQAxd81zS_story.html Landy, G. K and Mastrobattista, A. J. 2008, The IT/digital Legal Companion: A Comprehensive Business Guide to Software, Internet, and IP Law : Includes Contracts and Web Forms, UK: Syngress Lopez-Tarruella, J. 2012, Google and the Law, New York: Springer Publications Nikoltchev, S. 2007, Legal Aspects of Video on Demand, UK: Council of Europe Peters, J. W. 2007. Viacom Sues Google Over YouTube Video Clips, The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14viacom.web.html Reuters, 2012, Viacom's YouTube Lawsuit Revived: Networks Accuse Google Of Copyright Infringement, Huffington Post Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/viacom-youtube-lawsuit-google_n_1405911.html Scott, V. A. 2008, Google, New York: Greenwood Publishing Group Smith, G. J. 2007, Internet Law And Regulation, UK: Sweet & Maxwell Read More