返回正常中文阅读
想对这篇译文“指手画脚”吗？
大错 
小错 
不顺 
建议 Viacom vs. YouTube: Beyond Privacy
As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners
Just before the holiday weekend, media giant Viacom (VIA) won a legal victory over YouTube that set off fireworks across the Internet. The July 1 ruling gave Viacom access to records of what people watch on YouTube, which is owned by Google (GOOG) and is the most popular video site on the Web. Bloggers and consumer advocates warned of the potential privacy violations, particularly if Viacom uses the information to track down and sue people who watch copyrighted video clips on the site.
But there's an even larger issue at stake than privacy: The legal tide may be turning against many of the most popular companies on the Web. Numerous Internet companies, from YouTube and Flickr (YHOO) to eBay (EBAY) and MySpace (NWS), have built their success on the participation of their users. Inthe past, the courts have been quite clear that if those users violate laws—by posting copyrighted video of Viacom's Comedy Central shows on YouTube, for example—the Web company is not liable.
Increasingly, however, the courts are siding with rights owners and ruling that Web sites are responsible for illegal submissions. The new legal position, if it becomes the standard for the industry, will have profound implications for Internet companies everywhere. They may have to change their business practices to proactively screen out user submissions that could violate laws. That could dampen the growth of Web sites that depend on user submissions, and, in some cases, make their business models untenable.
Are Takedown Rules Enough?
The Viacom legal victory in its ongoing $1 billion copyright infringement suit against YouTube is the latest example of a judge ruling in favor of content holders. Earlier this week, eBay lost its third court case with luxury brands concerning counterfeit items listed for sale by eBay's users (BusinessWeek.com, 7/1/08). A French judge ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton handbag manufacturer LVMH (LVMH.PA) $61 million in damages. In doing so, the judge rejected eBay's argument that it is not responsible for illegal items sold by users because it provides tools to request removal of infringing goods and takes them down once notified.
The French court's decision is not binding in the U.S., and European courts, in general, have been more sympathetic to rights holders' arguments against U.S. technology companies. However, lawyers with cases in U.S. courts are likely to argue the international precedents should, at least, influence the thinking of American judges faced with their own cases challenging whether takedown rules are sufficient to protect sites against liability.
Sympathy for Rights Owners
There are several reasons why the courts may be growing more sympathetic to rights owners' arguments. First, companies such as YouTube increasingly look like they're cannibalizing the revenues of content creators like Viacom. In the past, YouTube and Google could make a "fair use" legal argument because YouTube typically shows clips—not whole episodes. But now, content creators are trying to make money from appending ads to roughly the same clips and distributing them on their own online networks. Just take a look at all the ad-supported clips on Hulu, News Corp. (NWS) and NBC Universal's joint venture.
Second, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may prove less of a legal shield for Web companies than it has in the past. Enacted in 1998, the law essentially protects Web sites from liability for their users' actions (BusinessWeek.com, 5/28/08), provided they remove illegal material once they are formally notified of its appearance on their site. The protections in the DMCA are among the main reasons sites across the Web—from social networks to media sites including BusinessWeek.com (MHP)—can solicit an array of user contributions.
In spite of the DMCA's impact on the Web, it is still a relatively young law, say legal experts. It is still being challenged, and a long body of case law firmly establishing its breadth and limits has yet to be established. "The law is still developing in this area and that is probably going to happen for a while," says Jennifer Urban, director of the USC Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic.
Judges and lawmakers are typically more sympathetic to arguments that protect companies from rights holders' lawsuits when their industries are still nascent. Few want to squash a developing industry and few rights holders want to spend thousands to millions suing a company that can't offer them substantial compensation. In recent years, however, many Web sites have started to sell ads against their user-generated content, giving rights holders the ability to seek higher damages and argue that the young industry has grown up.
Rethinking Users' Latitude
Already, there have been rulings limiting the scope of the DMCA. The decision against peer-to-peer file-sharing company Grokster in 2005 created case law that made sites more vulnerable to lawsuits. Under the ruling, sites could be liable for users' actions if they took measures that deliberately encouraged users to do illegal things. In its lawsuit, Viacom is arguing that YouTube is "inducing" users to commit illegal actions by highlighting copyrighted videos in areas such as YouTube's most-watched section. Viacom also argues that YouTube wants illegal content to stay on the site since it potentially profits from the additional traffic such content draws in. "We don't know if the court is going to buy that argument, but the consequences are enormous," says Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Matt Zimmerman. "It will depend on the way the ruling comes down."
Viacom has been clear about its plans for YouTube users. The company says it has no plans to go after people who watched a few episodes of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. "The information we've requested will be used to support Viacom's claims that Google and YouTube are infringing its intellectual property," says Mike Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel. "I also can say with complete certainty that we will not use any of the data provided to pursue individual end users."
As for the DMCA laws, Zimmerman and Urban both believe they should provide protection to YouTube. After all, it takes down material once it's notified and, according to Google, tries to keep the same infringing material from being posted again.
Ultimately, however, the judge will have to decide whether Google or YouTube is liable. And, if Judge Louis Stanton rides the current wave coming out of Europe, Web sites may have to seriously rethink how they manage their users.
Holahan is a writer for BusinessWeek.com in New York.
Viacom与YouTube之争 - 不仅仅因为用户隐私
当Viacom被允许查看YouTube网站的用户访问记录，这对于用户创造内容的站点将存在一个更大的威胁：法律日益与权利所有者站在一边。
就在刚刚过去的周末，媒体巨头Viacom在和YoutTube视频版权纠纷中获胜。7月1号的裁决使得Viacom有权查看Youtube的用户访问记录，YouTube是Google旗下子公司，同时也是全球最流行在线视频网站。博客和用户都提出这可能会侵犯用户的隐私，特别是当Viacom使用该信息跟踪和起诉那些查询在该网站上观看侵权视频片段的用户。
不过，现在有一个比保护隐私更加重要的意义:“法律逐渐倒向很多网络最流行的公司背立面，大量的互联网公司，从YouTube、Flicker、eBay和MySpace，的成功非常依赖用户的参与。过去法院明确表示，即使这些用户有侵权行为，在YouTube传播ViaCom喜剧中心版权所属的视频，相应网站不需付任何责任。.
然而，法院开始不断的站在版权所有者一边，裁决网站为其用户侵权使用负责。如果这次判决成为业内的普遍标准，那么将所有的互联网公司产生深远影响。这将改变这些网络公司的业务模式，密切关注用户是否有侵权行为。这将使得那些依靠用户参与的网站大受打击，某种情况下，使得它们的业务难以为继。
规则一边站就足够了？
Viacom公司在和YouTube版权纷争中获胜只是近期有利于内容保护者的案例之一。截止本周初，eBay的用户在eBay网站拍卖顶级品牌的赝品的侵权案例中， 1/3以eBay失败告终（BusinessWeek.com，2008-7-1）。法国一家法庭要求eBay赔偿路易斯610万美元。同时，法院驳回了eBay的上诉，表示eBay应当为用户的侵权行为负责，因为它为用户的侵权行为提供了平台。
法国这家法院的裁决在美国并没有约束力，欧洲的法院向来对美国高科技公司的侵权行为严惩不贷。然而，当类似侵权的案例发生在美国的时候，律师可能会将这些按案例作为国际惯例来影响美国法官的裁决。
同情版权所有者
是什么让法院越来越倾向于版权所有者？首先，像YouTube这样的公司日益瓜分如Viacom这样的内容创造商的营收。以前，YouTube和Google已“合理利用”为接口，因为YouTube不提供完整的视频内容，而只提供部分视频片段。但是现在，内容创造商们设法通过在同样的视频片段中插播广告，然后在自身的网站上发布。就比如， NBC Universal和新闻集团两大媒体巨头携手合作的视频网站Hulu上播出的视频片段都支持广告插播。
其次，《千禧年数字版权法》已经不再和1998颁布之初一样有力的保护高科技的网络公司。该法律用于对网站和用户的责任划分（BusinessWeek.com, 2008-5-28），只要网站在接到正式通知后立即删除非法内容即可免于受罚。《千禧年数字版权法》保护的主要对象是社交网络，视频网络其中包括BusinessWeek.com (MHP)，主要原因是因为这些网站依靠大量的用户上传。
专家表示，尽管《千禧年数字版权法》影响深远，但它依旧是一部年轻的法律，其中一些条款遭到质疑，该条款的适用范围也逐步受到限制。南加州大学知识产权和科技法律诊所（USC Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic）的主任詹妮弗·乌班（Jennifer Urban）认为，“”这部法律还有许多方面需要完善，可能还要持续一段时间。
通常情况下，法官和立法者常常更倾向于保护那些新兴产业。很少有公司会起诉那些新兴的公司，也没有哪个公司会花费了千、百万美元来起诉那些无力无力支付赔偿金的公司。近年来，许多网站开始在用户创造的内容中插播广告盈利，这意味着互联网产业日益成熟，给传统的内容制造商产生更大的威胁。
重新审视用户的行动或言论的自由度
此前的一些裁决已经限制了《千禧年数字版权法》的适用范围。2005年，判决Grokster公司P2P文件共享败诉，已经成为互联网公司受起诉的案例。根据这个裁决，如果网站采取措施鼓励用户违法，那么该网站就将为用户的行为负责任。在这件诉讼案中，Viacom指出YouTube将侵权视频放置在“最热门视频”一栏中来诱导用户上传侵权视频，另外，Viacom还指出YouTube希望侵权视频保持在网站中，因为它将从这些内容所带来的额外通信量中获益。电子前线基金会（EFF，Electronic Frontier Foundation）高级律师Matt Zimmerman.说，“我们不清楚法院是否会采用Viacom的观点，但是结果是都影响深远，这将取决于裁决下发的方式”。
Viacom对YouTube用户的态度也很明确。该公司无意跟踪那些观看部分《每日秀》和《科尔伯特报告》视频片段的用户记录。“我们要求获得这些信息只是为了证明Google和YouTube侵犯了Viacom公司的知识产权” Viacom的首席法律顾问Michael Fricklas说，“我可以很确定的说，我们不会利用这些数据来起诉YouTube用户”。
但就《千禧年数字版权法》法律本身来说，齐默曼和乌班都认为YouTube将在其保护之下。毕竟，在接到通知后，YouTube会立即将侵权内容删除，并且竭力不让这些侵权视频重新发布。
不过，法官最终需要判定Google或是YouTube是否需要承担责任。如果Louis Stanton法官认同欧洲的做法的话，各大网站都需要认真考虑如何管理的它们用户。
来源：BusinessWeek.com 编辑：Holahan 译者：夜行人
