Review article
What does Viacom v. YouTube decision from April 5, 2012 Change in the Online Service Providers’ Liability for Copyright Infringements Committed by their Users?
Dora Zgrabljić Rotar
orcid.org/0000-0002-6558-4532
; Faculty of Low, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube for direct and secondary copyright infringement
requesting damages in the amount of over 1 billion dollars. Later on the court
joined a related action by the Football Association Premier League and various
film studios, television networks and music publishers, turning it into a massive
class action against one of the most popular web sites in the world. In the
United States, these types of web sites generally fall within one of the judiciary
or legislatively created safe harbors. The District Court decided that YouTube
falls within a safe harbor, so Viacom appealed. The decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals was rendered on April 5, 2012. Although remanded to
the District Court for further proceedings, there are indications that YouTube
will not be granted safe harbor protection. Some strategies an online service
provider can implement to acquire safe harbor protection can be reexamined in
light of this decision and the existing case law. After a general introduction to
the indirect copyright infringement in the United States law and the facts of the
Viacom v. YouTube litigation, some recommendations for online service providers
have been offered.
Keywords
Online Service Provider; Copyright Infringement; Indirect Liability; Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Safe Harbor; Viacom v. YouTube
Hrčak ID:
99783
URI
Publication date:
20.12.2012.
Visits: 1.656 *