Home Fire Alarm Systems

We have written several times about the sad case of Veoh. Veoh is a YouTube-like, financed by Hollywood executives like Michael Eisner, but I am pursued by Universal Music Group, alleging infringement of copyright (with more or less the same theories used by Viacom against YouTube). Technically Veoh sued first (filing a declaratory judgment after receiving a threatening letter from UMG, UMG but soon followed with its own lawsuit). UMG has played dirty, not only sued the company, but their direct investors continuing. It was a purely technical intimidation designed to scare the big investors in either investing or pulling for the company to change course, even if what they did was legal. Although the court dismissed the charges against investors (UMG and scolded in the process), bullying could work. Amidst all this, Veoh closed because they ran out of money, mainly due to demand. It has sold its assets to a third party, and somehow managed to raise money to support demand and the demand is.

Since then, there have been a number of decisions that have repeatedly

found Veoh is legal and protected by DMCA Safe Harbor. The district court ruled in favor of Veoh, as did the Court of Appeals 9th Circuit. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal

ruled again on the subject, in order to overcome, again, said that Veoh was legal. Although it is still dead. The decision not only reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the protection of the DMCA to user-generated sites like Veoh, but also shows how it is still valid even taking into account the second circuit for the slightly weak DMCA safe harbors.

The court goes through a very detailed explanation of the reasons for the interpretation of the universal music DMCA does not make sense at all, and not only create internal conflicts within the law, but also to security rights effective way. Specifically, Universal Music tent, ridiculously, to argue that the DMCA safe harbors are not intended to apply to any service that makes the files accessible to the public. Like the Court, if such were the case, the law would be absurd, as copyright owners will never know the offense anyway, since the work would not be available for them to find. The Court notes that it is ridiculous to think that the DMCA safe harbors were intended only to apply a backup service. unconvinced UMG efforts to reconcile the internal contradictions of its interpretation of the statute creates by positing that Congress must have meant  512 (c) to protect only "web hosting" Services. Web hosts "host" websites on their servers, which "Mak [ing] storage resources available to website operators." The essence of the argument of UMG seems that Web servers can perform no classes to facilitate the accessibility features that Veoh, and therefore services "fit in the ordinary sense of the term" storage "and and" harmonize [s] "with the notification procedures and withdrawal. UMG theory ignores the reality that Internet servers, like Veoh, also store materials submitted by users make these documents accessible to Internet users

.'s why we have a website that is for others to see. amici As noted, these activities define access accommodation - if Host information is not stored for a single user, it would be more accurately described as a backup service online.

The court also rejected a theory - popular among some of our commentators maximalist - that the DMCA was intended only for purely "web hosting" companies, instead of being widely applied through various online services, such as service providers generated by the user. As Court noted, if Congress wants to limit the rights of security that way, I would have said: "If Congress intended to include this limitation, it would have said so explicitly and unambiguously."

The following detrimental to Universal Music: Veoh was really good to shoot videos when received DMCA notice. UMG tried to argue that Veoh had knowledge of infringing works on its site that are not deleted. This argument is the crux of the matter YouTube / Viacom as well: it is the "actual knowledge" of the DMCA notice, or what kind of knowledge creates "red flag" awareness. The DMCA is readable points means self-contradictory. For example, it is said that only one content provider Takedown if you receive a DMCA notice following the procedures lax. But then also talk about whether there are "red flag" awareness. Take for granted, and you might, for example, ask what happens if someone sends a DMCA notice unstructured (eg, the absence of certain elements), but shows the infringing works, however. Is "red flag" knowledge? Here, as in the case of YouTube, however, UMG is based on a flag knowledge much broader definition red, which is a type "

but must

saw

"kind of thing. This is the basic argument: no

music
on Veoh, Veoh and that was broke. The court did not believe him. First, just because there is music, does not mean it is a violation. Thereafter, the court makes a key point that we have reiterated many times - whenever the holders and the maximalist insist that service providers need to become copyright police - the service can not become copyright cops because they have no idea if things are allowed or not:
Find best price for : --legal----Music----YouTube----DMCA----Universal----Veoh--