Is Youtube really You?
A more on the law, as opposed to strategy in the Viacom lawsuit.
Legally, the most interesting element is Viacom’s apparent argument is that YouTube isn’t even covered by s. 512 — because, in short, it isn’t really “you” enough.
Viacom seem to be preparing to argue that, since Youtube plays such a role in hosting the videos, and doing things like screening porn, the videos are not, in fact “user-directed content,” the hosting of which is protected by 17 U.S.C. 512(c).
The main challenge for that argument is the text of 512(c), which protects “user-directed content” or “the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.”
That sounds like Youtube, since as the name suggests, Youtube stores content at the direction of a user. However, no one knows whether little steps, like making thumbnails, or screening sometimes and sometimes not, or offering search services, might take Youtube out of 512(c)’s protection.
The strongest argument that YouTube is not covered depends on the text. The idea is that Youtube is going beyond “storage” of videos, and is in fact that active agent here, not the user.
That reading of 512(c) leaves most Web 2.0 sites with alot less coverage than they may have though they had — that is, all sites other than naked web hosting sites. Facebook, Flickr, Myspace — all of these sites do more than just “store” information . Are they covered by 512(c)? Stay tuned.