News: Andy Plesser of Beet.TV interviewed Michael Fricklas, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Viacom. Fricklas and Viacom have been on record already in generally supporting user-generated content that involve noncommercial mashups and remixes of copyrighted content. They emphasize the noncommercial nature and some "transformative" element -- adding something new -- in the remix.
Analysis: Viacom should be applauded for its stance, although the proof always is in the pudding.
News: Today, we discussed the Viacom v. YouTube case in my copyright class. I use TurningPoint technology that allows me to instantly poll my class through PowerPoint slides. 88% of my class concluded that YouTube falls within the Section 512 safe harbors. That's a very high percentage--indeed, one that I find surprising based on previous votes in my class. In difficult cases, my class tends to split closer to 50/50 or 60/40, as you might expect. But rarely does my class vote in one-sided fashion unless the case is pretty easy -- which isn't exactly how I would characterize the YouTube case. I may have some more discussion with my class on Monday, and if I find anything illuminating about the vote, I'll try to post it.
Analysis: I think the voting technology has made me wonder why copyright defendants do not request jury trials in every single case. I would think a jury increases the chances of the defendant winning in cases with arguable defenses.
News: Score a minor victory for YouTube. Judge Stanton ruled last week that Viacom cannot seek punitive damages (which are meant to punish) under the Copyright Act, since the damages provision of the Act does not allow them and existing precedent rejects them, too. This is not a surprise; I doubt Viacom really thought it could win this argument. The full opinion is below.
