Click here to RSVP to WHIR Events:
Houston - February 18, 2010
New York City - March 25, 2010
Chicago - April 22, 2010

Recent posts by Liam:

Thanks for Making our LA WHIR Event a Big Success

Still Time to Sign up for Tonight's Networking Event

VMOps Feature Interview, Upcoming Webinar – Build a Computing Cloud

Check Out Our New “Most Popular” News Functions

Register for a Panel Discussion with Telecity, Proofpoint and The Planet

I think it would be safe to assume that everyone's quite aware of the Viacom/Google/YouTube lawsuit by this point, given the tendency of $1 billion legal actions to be reported in the news.

There's an interesting Reuters story here, which includes input from a couple of analysts on the impact the lawsuit might have on the popular interpretation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and how changes to that interpretation may affect service providers as a result of this particular dispute.

(There's a similarly interesting article on The Register)

This, of course, is where we begin to see the impact on Web hosts - and let me be clear here that I'm talking about anybody that provides users with a means for posting (potentially copyrighted) content online, be they an old-fashioned Web host, or the provider of some social networking service or user-generated content site.

Basically (bearing in mind that I'm not technically a lawyer), the interpretation up to this point of the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions has protected hosts against liability in exchange for responsibility. That is, there's an understanding that a host can't necessarily prevent its customers from putting copyrighted materials online, but it bears a certain responsibility for responding to complaints.

Up to this point, it has been enough for a site like YouTube to respond quickly when notified of a possibly infringement. But that understanding of the DMCA may change with the legal action.

Part of the premise for the Viacom lawsuit seems to be that YouTube isn't doing enough to prevent users from uploading copyrighted content in the first place. The company isn't taking advantages of some of the technologies that could identify potentially copyrighted material when a user tried to post it.

This may surprise you, but when reading about a $1 billion legal dispute between two gigantic media corporations, I tend to view both companies' official lines as just slightly less than 100 percent true.

Again, I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't already know here, but YouTube does see a tremendous amount of traffic from people searching for copyrighted clips of, say, the Colbert Report. And Viacom may not be quite as interested in the sanctity of its copyrights (I think it is patently impossible that Viacom believes a copyright-infringing 30-second clip of one of its shows on YouTube is anything other than highly effective free advertising) as it is in stalling the progress of YouTube while its own Internet video investments play catch-up.

Ultimately, getting a look at anybody's real feelings about truth or justice becomes awfully difficult when there are billions of dollars involved.

The important thing, for you and I, is that this case could have a tangible impact on how you treat the possibility of copyright infringement among your customers, and what the court is willing to offer you in its interpretation of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.

(By the way, this seems like a perfect subject for a couple other bloggers to weigh in on, so I'm going to go so far as to email some people looking for input if they happen to miss this post - expect some interesting follow-up commentary)