L’erba del vicino: Si addensano le nuvole su Youtube ?

Viacom ha chiesto 2 anni fa piu’ di 1Bn in danni a Youtube per il materiale protetto da diritto d’autore (simil caso Mediaset nostrano). YT dice che quando gli viene detto, tolgono. Viacom dice che YT  sapeva che c’era materiale protetto da copyright ma ha fatto volontariamente leva sulla sua violazione per crescere.

Qualcuno, qualche settimana fa, mi faceva notare un paio di cose: la prima che la cosa che attira di piu’ dei servizi video su IP e’ la catchup TV, ovvero la TV del giorno prima, con un crollo di interesse fino al terzo giorno successivo.

La seconda che su YT si trovano tutti gli highlights della TV del giorno prima, “spiderati” dagli utenti. A questo punto i titolari li rimuovono, ma cio’ avviene in grande misura dopo che gli stessi hanno perso la maggior parte del loro interesse.

YT sarebbe cosi’ una “catchup TV” con contenuti selezionati, digitalizzati e caricati
dagli utenti in un formidabile crowdsourcing, facendo leva su meccanismi tecnologici ed una interpretazione delle norme (contrastante con cio’ che dice Mediaset e Viacom).

News from The Associated Press.

The evidence is expected to provide insights into the early strategies of YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen and how…

 they responded to copyright complaints that quickly accumulated a few months after the Web site’s 2005 debut.

… Viacom, the owner of Paramount Pictures and cable TV channels that include Comedy Central, sued YouTube in 2007 seeking more than $1 billion in damages.

Viacom alleges that YouTube built its early success by rampantly infringing on copyrights.

YouTube maintains it follows the copyright laws governing the Internet.

Viacom seems particularly interested in sharing some of the documents that it gathered from YouTube and Google.

The company, based in New York, argued for a quick release of the records shortly after it and YouTube filed their motions for summary judgments.

YouTube’s lawyers unsuccessfully tried to persuade Stanton to keep the documents under seal until this summer.

… Viacom contends YouTube’s employees realized copyright-protected video was being illegally posted on the Web site, but routinely looked the other way because they knew the professionally produced material would help attract a bigger audience and encourage return visits.

YouTube lawyers have contended there was no way to know whether copyright-protected video was coming from pirates or from movie and TV studios looking to use the Web site as a promotional tool. If a studio issued a notice of a copyright violation, YouTube says it promptly removed the specified clip as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The 1998 federal law generally protects service providers such as YouTube from copyright claims as long as they promptly remove infringing material when notified about a violation.

The outcome could hinge on whether Viacom can prove YouTube knew about the copyright abuses without formal notice from Viacom.