Blog Post

YouTube And T-Series Given Time To Settle Copyright Infringement Dispute

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

The Delhi High Court has given YouTube and T-Series time to settle their copyright infringement dispute, and the case will be heard next in July. Representing YouTube and Google (NSDQ: GOOG), legal bigwig Arun Jaitley said that YouTube doesn’t upload the content on the site – people from all over the world do. They have no control over the “entry of people” – every day, around 50,000 people from all over the world upload content. If T-Series were to give YouTube 5000 of their copyrights – and they don’t want originals, garbled copies will do – YouTube will remove the content. Referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), he said that every time an instance of violation is pointed out, YouTube will remove it. 51 titles were given to the Google owned company by T-Series, and they have been removed. Pravin Anand, representing T-Series, countered, saying that despite their giving YouTube information, as of the evening before the hearing, the songs were still there. He said that American law (the DMCA) is not applicable in India, and T-Series’ copyright should not depend on their supplying material to YouTube – it shouldn’t be that “you will remove it only when we ask you to”. The company should not suffer because of defective technology.

The hearing, which was held last Friday, was rather short and repetitive (I waited over 3 hours for it to begin), and to me it seemed as if both parties didn’t mind “taking it offline”. So expect major negotiations over the next few months. One can rest assured that YouTube will not want to set a precedent that other copyright owners are waiting for – and believe me, there are many of them waiting for a verdict here, including those who have already signed up with YouTube.

9 Responses to “YouTube And T-Series Given Time To Settle Copyright Infringement Dispute”

  1. However, is there no regulation (globally) that says that user generated content needs to have a certificate that declares that the USG is new/fresh/is not a copy/ free of any IPR? Can you tube not insist that only UGC that has such certificate will be allowed for uplinking? In case the certificate is false then the guy who posts content will be held responsible for impinging on the IPR.

  2. Maverick

    Thanx Prashant for augmenting my point.

    My post was 2 pronged…one as an counter argument to eminent lawyers like Arun Jaitley…though both of us went to the same law school and other to state that technology provisions for such checks even today…its just the matter of will!!!

    And may be also to bring home another point…is there nobody out there who can challenge efficaciously such blatant violation of law!!!

  3. "Why cant youtube evaluate the content before it allows it to be published on the site…simply coz they don't want to do so"

    of course but that is only one side of the coin . lets say tomorrow some directive /judgment from US Fed Court enforce them to check everything before making it public . how will they check ?? given the high volume of videos being uploaded ??
    by Humans ?? not possible

    only other way is to sniff all data for a digital fingerprint or something and block it . but there also the problem is that a lot of legacy content is not having digital fingerprint or those who have it can be striped of any DRM identifier by using any of the free tool available on net .

    so till the time there is a way to address this issue , till the time every file hiting YOU TUBE server is not DRM protected , YouTube guy have an alibi and disclaimer . and you can't shut them down like Napster ,Google is behined them :) .

    if RIAA makes MUSIC Cheap than people don't need Youtube . i don't know why they don't get it

  4. Arun's argument are really surprising…as its been held in various cases like Napster before that if there is a service which acts as a conduit to publish/share IP protected content such as music/video then that service/entity will deem to be culpable and such service will be treated as abetment to the crime.

    The onus cant be put on the IP owner's shoulder…its like saying that I will buy/sell stolen goods unless the real owner comes and state his claim…!!!

    Whats wrong in selling pirated goods then…!!!

    Why cant youtube evaluate the content before it allows it to be published on the site…simply coz they dont want to do so!!!