The pirated material came from the millions of people who have uploaded clips to YouTube since its 2005 inception.

The pirated material came from the millions of people who have uploaded clips to YouTube since its 2005 inception.

In a high-stakes legal battle with important implications for the future of the internet, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York sided with Google Inc. on June 23 as he rebuffed media company Viacom Inc.’s attempt to collect more than $1 billion in damages for alleged copyright infringement by the Google-owned web site YouTube during its first two years of existence.

YouTube’s actions spoke louder than its founders’ words when it came down to deciding whether the internet’s most watched video site illegally exploited copyrighted clips owned by Viacom, the judge found.

The 30-page opinion embraces Google’s interpretation of a 12-year-old law that shields internet services from claims of copyright infringement as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation.

The ruling is a major victory for Google, as well as other internet service providers and free-speech groups who feared a decision in favor of Viacom would undercut the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and make it more difficult for people to use the internet to express themselves.

“Without this decision, user-generated content would dry up and the internet would cease to be a participatory medium,” said David Sohn, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

If not for the broad protections allowed under digital copyright law, Google probably wouldn’t have paid $1.76 billion to acquire YouTube in 2006. A few months before that deal, Google’s own executives had branded the video-sharing service as “a ‘rogue enabler’ of content theft,” according to documents unearthed in the copyright infringement case.

eMail messages obtained as part of the evidence submitted in the case depicted YouTube founders Chad Hurley, Steven Chen, and Jawed Karim as video pirates more interested in getting rich quick than obeying federal law.

But Stanton seem more interested in YouTube’s behavior than the mindset of its founders.

In dismissing the lawsuit before a trial, Stanton noted that Viacom had spent several months accumulating about 100,000 videos violating its copyright and then sent a mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007. By the next business day, Stanton said, YouTube had removed virtually all of them.

Stanton said there’s no dispute that “when YouTube was given the [takedown] notices, it removed the material.”

The judge’s reasoning was “clear and decisive,” said Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University associate professor who specializes in high-tech law. “He rose above the fray and didn’t get into any of the mudslinging that was going on in this case.”


Add your opinion to the discussion.