Veoh-DMCA Covers Video Upload Site Charged With Exposing Skin Flicks by mitchell zimmerman Document hosted at Io v. We note that the court did not hold all of the foregoing steps to be necessary, but found them sufficient to establish that Veoh reasonably implemented its repeat infringer policy. Since its site had been launched, Veoh had terminated over one thousand repeat infringers. Veoh generates a “hash,” or digital “fingerprint,” for each video file, which allows Veoh to terminate access to any other identical infringing files and prevent additional identical files from being uploaded by any user. The court held that Veoh reasonably implemented its policy where: “Veoh often responds to infringement notices the same day they are received, or at most, within a few days.” After a second infringing posting, the user’s account is terminated, all content provided by that user is disabled (unless also published by another non-terminated user), and the user’s email address is blocked so that a new account cannot be opened with that same address.
Eligibility for the safe harbor requires that online service providers adopt, reasonably implement and inform subscribers of a policy providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers. Lloyd assessed these requirements, providing useful guidance on how much policing for infringement of one’s site is enough to meet the statutory requirements. In granting summary judgment to Veoh, Magistrate Judge Howard R. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court considered the sufficiency of Veoh’s policies and practices to satisfy the DMCA’s requirements for safe harbor eligibility. The parties stipulated that the case be heard by a Magistrate Judge. Coincidentally, however, before Veoh learned of the action, Veoh independently decided to bar pornographic content from its site and terminated access to all erotic content on Veoh (including the Io video clips). Without availing itself of the take-down remedies provided by the DMCA or making any other demand, Io filed suit for copyright infringement. In June 2006, Io discovered that clips from ten of its copyrighted films had without authorization been uploaded to and viewed on Veoh. As is typical for such websites, Veoh had positioned itself to claim the protection of the DMCA’s user storage safe harbor by offering the statutorily-specified process for copyright holders to request that infringing matter be taken down, by adopting a repeat infringer policy, and by taking other steps required for DMCA compliance. Veoh now offers advertising opportunities associated with its video content, but did not do so at the times relevant to the lawsuit, nor did it charge any membership or subscription fees. Veoh offers usersubmitted video content, as well as commercially produced videos licensed from sources such as Turner, CBS, Us Magazine and Road & Track Magazine.
Factual background and procedural posture Io Group is a producer, marketer and distributor of erotic entertainment products, including films. Surveying a range of DMCA requirements, the Veoh decision provides a useful map for websites that host user-submitted content seeking to navigate into the DMCA’s safe harbors. Rather, the issue is whether Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with copyright infringement that takes place.” The court concluded that Veoh did. The DMCA does not contemplate, the court concluded, that “Veoh shoulder the entire burden of policing third-party copyrights on its website (at the cost of losing its business if it cannot). YouTube suit and for every website that hosts user-supplied content, a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California has granted summary judgment against a publisher of “adult” films on the ground that an “Internet Television Network” that enables the sharing of userprovided video content was protected from copyright liability by a safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Fenwick & west In an important decision with potential implications for the Viacom v.
0 kommentar(er)
