In Viacom v. Youtube there is (i) a copyright infringement claim in the surface, and (ii) an underlying conflict between an outdated business model and the forces of innovation, creativity and evolution.
The creation of printed press made possible the creation of the author´s right to profit from the reproduction of his work. As it always happens, the law was changed to adjust to a new reality and not the other way around.
Internet and its associated technologies transformed the way we interact with copyrighted content, and reduced the costs to perform the exclusive rights established in the Copyright Act. My opinion as a law student is that such transformation requires an adjustment in copyright law.
Courts shall keep in mind, while applying Copyright law, that copyright has an instrumentality relation with its underlying policy to promote innovation and the progress of useful arts.
In regard to the superficial claim, I believe decision will depend on (i) if there is evidence that Youtube induced infringement, (ii) if it is possible to identify direct profits from infringement, and (iii) if there is evidence to link Viacom and actual knowledge of infringing content.
In regard to the underlying discussion, I just hope I don’t need search for my old VCR.
No comments:
Post a Comment