Creative Technology Network

I used to teach a course to staff at King's College London on copyright law, and one of the main pieces of advice I gave was that contrary to popular belief, content on the internet is not free. Yes, you can access certain information online, but this does not mean that is legal to upload or download it, as the case may be.

It therefore came as no surprise that a US district court judge ruled in favour of Viacom's demands to see who has been uploading their video content on YouTube. Call it payback time. This is part of a $1bn case which Viacom has undertaken to establish whether it is an infringement for YouTube to host copyright material on their website without permission.

The unexpected aspect of the case was that the judge decided to force Google to hand over data which includes the user names and web addresses of anyone who has logged in to watch clips on the site. There may be a legal challenge to the judgment, as many insiders are already questioning whether this is a breach of privacy law, both in the US and the EU. Still, it is unlikely that internet service providers will now have to divulge the details of individual users, unless they have actually posted clips belonging to Viacom.

Viacom is claiming (pdf) users put up pirated video clips on YouTube "by the thousands".
Google, which paid $1.6 bn to acquire YouTube in 2006, is likely to be hit by a massive bill if they lose the case, and the value of YouTube will be substantially reduced. The English Premier League is also involved in the litigation, and is seeking class action status. This means they can join in the action against YouTube by showing that they have a similar complaint.

Disclosure of the details of YouTube users will help Viacom to find out the extent of the illegal content on the site, and may form the basis for actions against individual infringers. It is unlikely mere viewers will be sued, as organisations that police copyright have generally only taken legal action against people who download or share content, and counterfeiters making money from it.

Attorney Kurt Opsahl, for privacy campaigners the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said, "The court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube. We urge Viacom to back off [from] this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users." EFF called the judgment "a set-back to privacy rights."

It is time that YouTube and other file-sharing services operated more responsibly. The well-meaning users who upload their favourite clips, or make parodies of videos which are owned by big media companies may feel they are doing nothing wrong. Some people argue that organisations like Viacom and the Premier League make enough money already. But there is a more important principle at stake. Most copyright owners make very small amounts from their work, and they should be entitled to prevent low quality copies from being distributed on YouTube if they wish.

Copyright owners have the right to object to illegal file-sharing, and downloading of their content. The result of this court action is that YouTube will need to police the material that people upload. They will also need to set up a system of royalties to pay content owners and authors for the rights to use their work. This will reduce the value of the YouTube brand, and force them to share their profits on a more equitable basis, instead of just enriching Google.