Florence-Marie Cooper, the judge in the Robert Tur vs YouTube/Google copyright infringement lawsuit has dismissed motions by both sides for a summary judgement in the case. Her ruling is that more evidence is necessary to determine if YouTube is protected from liability by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
As so many have now said, the copyright infringement cases against YouTube are going to come down to this - Is YouTube protected by the DMCA?.
Here are excerpts of her reasoning and decision…
I find it fascinating to see this play out, for a quick synopsis, read her final paragraph.
—————————————-
United States Disctrict Court
Central District of California
Robert Tur d/b/a Los Angeles News Service (Plaintiff)
vs
YouTube, Inc. (Defendant)
YouTube’s Motion
YouTube’s ultimate eligibility for “safe harbor” protection depends upon whether YouTube can prove that it satisfies certain threshold elements common to all of the safe harbor provisions.
YouTube must prove that:
YouTube maintains it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the allegedly infringing activity and that it does not have the right or ability to control said activity. As the statute makes clear, a provider’s receipt of a financial benefit is only implicated where the provider also “has the right and ability to control the infringing activity”.
As such, if YouTube does not have the right and ability to control the alleged infringing activity, the Court need not engage in the “financial benefit analysis.”
The “right and ability to control” infringing activity, as the concept is used in the DMCA, has been held to mean “something more” than just the ability of a service provider to remove or block access to materials posted on its website or stored in its system. Rather, the requirement presupposes some antecedent ability to limit or filter copyrighted material.
There is insufficient evidence regarding YouTube’s knowledge and ability to exercise control over the infringing activity on its site. There is clearly a significant amount of maintenance and management that YouTube exerts over its website, but the nature and extent of that management is unclear. YouTube also asserts that while it is able to remove clips once they have been uploaded and flagged as infringing, its system does not have the technical capabilities needed to detect and prescreen allegedly infringing videotapes. However, there is insufficient evidence before the Court concerning the process undertaken by YouTube from the time a user submits a video clip to the point of display on the YouTube website. Thus, there is insufficient evidence from which the Court can determine YouTube’s right and ability to control the infringing activity.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES YouTube’s motion
June 20, 2007
—————————————-
Thus, the great debate is layed out. What makes it difficult is that clearly YouTube is in compliance with some safe harbor aspects of DMCA. If you look at the 7 provisions, as stated by Judge Cooper, I think YouTube is in compliance with 1,2,3,7 and maybe 6 (though that can be argued). Where YouTube is not in compliance, to me, and this is the main infringment argument, is provision 4 and 5.
4) YouTube lacked knowledge of the infringing material and
5) YouTube did not receive financial benefit from the infringing material.
That part of the DMCA case will be hard for YouTube to make.
copyright infringement, copyright infringement cases, digital millennium copyright act, dmca, infringement lawsuit, intellectual+property, safe harbor, youtube 
