Viacom's copyright lawsuit against YouTube will be handed over to YouTube again

BySsalonso

In March 2007, the federal district court dismissed Viacom 's appeal for a $ 1 billion (approximately ¥ 98 billion) reparation caused by Viacom as alleged infringement of YouTube as a copyright infringement. In this lawsuit, there was a ruling in 2010 that there was no problem with YouTube,Appeal courtHad invalidated the judgment and remanded to the district court.

YouTube Again Beats Viacom's Massive Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/youtube-again-beats-viacoms-massive-442233


Court hands another defeat to Viacom in never-ending YouTube lawsuit | Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-hands-another-defeat-to-viacom-in-never-ending-youtube-lawsuit/

You can read the judgment sentence for this case at the following link.

Viacom v. YouTube
http://ja.scribd.com/doc/136774731/Viacom-v-YouTube


MTVYaComedy CentralViacom, which owns TV broadcasting stations such as TV, is supposed to accept YouTube in March 2007 as permitting the uploading of videos that infringe copyrightCopyright law suit with total compensation of 1 billion dollarsI got up.

Judge Luis Stanton in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Viacom's action in 2010, but in 2012 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circle invalidated this decision and returned it to the district court.

YouTube submitted to the court 60,060 videos that were ultimately judged to be infringing copyrights and proved to Viacom that evidence that YouTube employees were aware that these videos were copyright violations I was asking for submission. Viacom acknowledged that it can not be proved, but claimed that YouTube's burden of proof that YouTube's employees were aware of videos infringing copyright was not Viacom but a voucher It was.

Judge Staunton said that the appeal that YouTube must prove that an employee has not noticed whether the video infringes the copyright is limited to acting under certain predefined rules and scope It is said that it will not be illegal or violateSafe Harbor Rule (safety port provision)We dismissed Viacom's assertion as contrary to it.

In response to this decision, one of Youtube's founderChad HurleyMr. Viacom is CEOPhilippe DormanAs if you tease him, "Will you go for a drink with Yo Philippe, beer for celebration?"Tweets.


Viacom spokesperson Jeremy Zweik said in an e-mail, "This sentence completely ignores the views of the upper courts and the rights of artists." Moreover, Viacom decided to appeal with appealing this ruling.