Most Read: Business

DJIA
0.76%
S&P 500
0.71%
NASDAQ
0.69%
 Last Update: 08:02 PM 10/25/2014

World Markets from      

 

Other Market Data from      

 

Key Rates from      

 

Blog Contributors

Timothy B. Lee

Timothy B. Lee

Timothy B. Lee covers technology policy, including copyright and patent law, telecom regulation, privacy, and free speech. He also writes about the economics of technology. He has previously written for Ars Technica and Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter or send him email.

Brian Fung

Brian Fung

Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on electronic privacy, national security, digital politics and the Internet that binds it all together. He was previously the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at the Atlantic. His writing has also appeared in Foreign Policy, Talking Points Memo, the American Prospect and Nonprofit Quarterly. Follow Brian on Google+ .

Andrea Peterson

Andrea Peterson

Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post, with an emphasis on cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open government. She also delves into the societal impacts of technology access and how innovation is intertwined with cultural development.

Post Tech
About / Where's Post I.T.?   |    Twitter  |   On Facebook  |  RSS RSS Feed  |  E-Mail Cecilia
Posted at 02:31 PM ET, 04/05/2012

Viacom, YouTube suit sent back to lower court

U.S. Court of Appeals judge in Manhattan Thursday sent a copyright infringement case between Viacom and YouTube back to the District Court for further consideration.

The suit, which many consider an important case on infringement and interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, stems from a Viacom complaint that YouTube was aware of infringing content being present on its Web site and did not remove it.

The district court had ruled that YouTube did not have knowledge of specific pieces of infringing content, and therefore was protected under the safe harbor provision of the copyright law.

On Thursday, the appeals court upheld that ruling in part, but asked that the district court reconsider the case and ask more questions about how much YouTube employees knew about specific, infringing videos and whether the company had shown “willful blindness” to addressing certain clips.

“[A] reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness...at least with respect to a handful of specific clips,” the court ruled.

Both Viacom and YouTube said in statements that they are happy with the ruling.

“The Second Circuit has upheld the long-standing interpretation of the DMCA and rejected Viacom’s reading of the law,” said YouTube in a statement. “All that is left of the Viacom lawsuit that began as a wholesale attack on YouTube is a dispute over a tiny percentage of videos long ago removed from YouTube. Nothing in this decision impacts the way YouTube is operating. YouTube will continue to be a vibrant forum for free expression around the world.”

Viacom said in a statement, “We are pleased with the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court delivered a definitive, common sense message – intentionally ignoring theft is not protected by the law.”

By  |  02:31 PM ET, 04/05/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company