What Does YouTube's Summary Judgment Win Mean
Through the discovery process, Viacom uncovered numbers of YouTube executive e-mails discussing the awareness of the infringement issue and how to best respond--taking into account the YouTube interest in potential acquisitions prior to being bought by Google.
The federal judge cited YouTube's timely response under the DMCA to take down copyrighted materials when put on notice as required by the DMCA. However, YouTube execs knew, or certainly should have known, that the many clips from known television programs were copyrighted and were being used without permission by YouTube posters.
The underlying concerns of copyright holders, all along the spectrum of large multinational media companies to individual artists, is that this immediate court ruling can open the door to unauthorized use of copyrighted content and even with apparent knowledge the hosting service can rely on procedural compliance with the DMCA as a shield.
Admittedly, YouTube may not have been acting as like the original Napster or the current LimeWire in actively promoting the use and sharing of copyrighted content but in all practical terms the significant amount of copyrighted material appearing on YouTube without any apparent consent was acknowledged.
Viacom's appeal of the district court's decision is one to follow.