Sun Rises In The Morning, Sets At Night, And Viacom Appeals YouTube Ruling
from the carry-on dept
It’s almost not worth mentioning because everyone knew this was going to happen one way or the other from the time Viacom first sued YouTube in the first place, no matter what the outcome of the initial case. However, with Google/YouTube getting summary judgment in its favor back in June, it was only a matter of dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s on the paperwork for Viacom’s appeal (well, technically, Viacom needed to wait for the original summary judgment to be official). That’s all been done and the appeal is now officially in motion, with the paperwork filed to start the appeals process. Get ready for a few more years of back and forth arguments before any of this means anything.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, safe harbors
Companies: google, viacom, youtube
Comments on “Sun Rises In The Morning, Sets At Night, And Viacom Appeals YouTube Ruling”
ViaCon trying to con its way through the courts.
Well this was bound to happen, those people are using less important rullings to make it common law what they want, they go after the small ones first to create precedents and then when it is all set they try the big ones.
Is like using pedo crazy talk to pass ridiculous laws for one reason and then use those same laws for other things.
makes you wonder
In cases like this, when everyone just knows the losing side will appeal, what’s the point of even going through the first few steps?
Re: makes you wonder
Simple: To pay the lawyers.
Re: makes you wonder
There is a point to it, and the judge knows it. That’s why he was careful to explain his reasoning in meticulous detail, to leave as little wiggle room for appeal as possible.
Now it’s up to the appeals court to confirm how well he did his job.
#include <stddisclaimer/ianal.h>
Endless appeals system indeed…
So enlighten me...
We knew this was going to happen. But will it really do anything when the safe harbors are right square looking Viacom in the face? What new argument could they try to make their case look any better?
Re: So enlighten me...
I think the argument will be a “we can do this all day” settlement. Google stands to loose a lot more than Viacom will spend on staff filed appeals. At some point, Google may fork over some cash just to take off the risk prospectus.
Re: Re: So enlighten me...
Such is an abuse of our legal system.
Re: Re: So enlighten me...
Or google could just hire some cheap lawyers to deal with the case just keeping it going and not spend much money.
Now, I’m gonna guess that Viacom will run out of their lawyers pocket money before Google.
This is why appeals need to be limited, and sometimes denied entirely. Otherwise we have courts needlessly bogged down in the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal…
Mike, you once again misstate the law and the facts
Well, Mike, you have the substance wrong, and you have thus missed the interesting part of the story. As any first-year law student would know, the summary-judgment ruling in favor of YouTube DID NOT create a final appealable order.
Consequently, Viacom has done something telling here: They must have agreed to dismiss their case, pending the results of an appeal of the safe-harbor ruling.
That is highly unusual. I once advised a client to do that, but they wouldn’t. In effect, this means that Viacom must have few or no doubts that Judge Stanton’s reasoning will be rejected on appeal. I agree. Here is a short paper that explains why:
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.14-Grokster_Redux.pdf
In short, Judge Stanton’s ruling is dead-wrong on the law for all the same reasons that the district-court decision in Grokster was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. –Tom
Re:
You lost, Tom.