We wrote a detailed post about the latest Veoh ruling, in which Universal Music lost (again) in claiming that Veoh violated copyright law with its YouTube-like service. Of course, as we pointed out, the "victory" for Veoh is pretty meaningless because Veoh is dead. The cost of the lawsuit itself killed it. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, when you see stories like the federal government shutting down Dajaz1 for over a year, without having an actual case for infringement, and the similar case in Japan, in which the developer of a software program, Winny, had to battle in courts for more than five years, before the court declared that he was totally innocent.
As far as Veoh is concerned, the main issue in that suit, and the reason Universal took them to court was because Universal had supposedly sent repeated notices for Veoh to remove copyrighted content, and they did not fully comply (according to Universal). Universal contended that Veoh was akin to services like the original Napster, that encouraged copyright infingement by lacking the proper checks and balances to verify content is not otherwise copyrighted by a 3rd party. They also argued whether or not Veoh was protected under certain statutes.
And with Winny, well, we don't live in Japan. You're talking about a suit filed in Japan by the Recording Industry Association of Japan, which is not a branch or division of our RIAA. For that matter, we're talking about statutes that already exist and are not part of the new proposed law. Anybody can take anybody to court. I can take you to small claims court right now over whatever bullshit I make up, and you have to show up and defend yourself, or I win by default. What you pasted above doesn't really have anything to do with what is proposed, since it already exists.
The harm done to legitimate businesses by totally bogus copyright claims seems like it should be a big deal. If the government is really concerned about jobs, rather than passing something like SOPA, shouldn't it be ramping up the punishment for bogus copyright claims that cause so much real harm to businesses? Eric Goldman, in discussing the Veoh ruling makes a similar point and puts forth an interesting suggestion for SOPA, to force companies filing such claims to put up a bond to pay, if they turn out to be wrong:
Veoh could have sued Universal, or could have been awarded damages, if a court found it to be a totally frivolous lawsuit that had no basis or merit whatsoever. But it wasn't that type of lawsuit. It was like alot of lawsuits of this nature, where it is a matter of interpretation.
A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.
Total bullshit. This is like saying only people who make $200,000 or more a year are allowed to file police reports for theft. It doesn't matter who you are; if somebody stole your property, whether tangible or intellectual, there should be reasonable recourse for that. Here you are complaining about how some innocent sites might get shut down in a dragnet of blocking IP resolution, but you seem to support the notion that it's just tough luck that "the little guy" won't have reasonable access to protect a copyright.
The supporters of the bill, of course, would reject such a suggestion out of hand, noting that it would be unfair and would make it harder for them to "enforce their rights." But that ignores the other side of the equation. If enforcing their rights involves completely destroying someone else's company, then, as Goldman notes, shouldn't it be difficult?
When YouTube decided to do what they do, they knew there were risks involved. As time went by and more and more laws were passed in regards to copyright, pirating, etc, they knew the risks they continued to take. You live by the sword, and you die by the sword. It is no different than all of the businesses in Alabama that are based solely on the hispanic population. It was great before the immigration laws came about. But now that there is law and there customer bases are moving away, well now it's not fair. They're the ones that chose the business model that they did. When you create a business geared towards a super specific customer, or where you can be held liable for the actions of others, well, that's your problem. If I open a bar and my bartender served this guy way past when he should have been cut off, and that drunk goes and plows down a family of 5 and kills them, then that's my ass as the owner of that bar. Etc, etc, etc.
169 Replies
27900 Views