Secretly Probes Internet Servers with a U.S. Intelligence Program

The U.S. director of national intelligence late Thursday confirmed the existence of a secret program in which the government has tapped into the central servers of nine leading Internet companies to search for data potentially linked to terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, but he called two newspapers’ disclosure of it “reprehensible.”

Under the 6-year-old program, code-named PRISM, the FBI and National Security Agency have searched for emails, videos, photographs and other documents. The effort involves Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, the Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian reported, quoting from classified documents. Among major Internet companies, only Twitter has so far been a holdout, the Post said.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper confirmed the program but said the Post and Guardian articles contained “numerous inaccuracies.”

Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo all denied participating. The others did not respond to requests for comment Thursday night.

See Video and Read More...  http://ktla.com/2013/06/07/u-s-intelligence-program-secretly-probes-internet-servers/#ixzz2VYWTWpvX

 Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Copyright Lawsuit YouTube and Viacom

A federal judge in New York on Thursday ruled that YouTube had not violated Viacom's copyright even though users of the popular online site were allowed to post unauthorized video clips from some of Viacom's most popular shows, including Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob SquarePants."

Viacom filed the copyright infringement suit in 2007 and demanded that YouTube pay $1 billion in damages. The dispute erupted as established media titans, including Viacom, were struggling to cope with the disruption of digital media and trying to figure out how to rein in the unauthorized distribution of their content.

The case has been closely watched because media companies had hoped the courts would help enforce their copyright protections because the Internet made it so easy for people to pirate clips from their hit TV shows.

However, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton wrote in a 24-page opinion that YouTube was shielded from copyright infringement claims by a safe-harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Stanton dismissed Viacom's lawsuit, and ordered Viacom to pay some of YouTube's costs.

“The court correctly rejected Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube, reaffirming that Congress got it right when it comes to copyright on the Internet," Google's general counsel Kent Walker said in a statement. "This is a win not just for YouTube, but for people everywhere who depend on the Internet to exchange ideas and information.”

YouTube founder Chad Hurley taunted Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman, a longtime corporate lawyer, in a Twitter message, asking: "Hey Philippe, wanna grab a beer to celebrate?! YouTube Again Beats Viacom's Massive Copyright Infringement Lawsuit."

This is the second time that arguments of Viacom, which is controlled by media mogul Sumner Redstone, have been rejected.

In 2010, Stanton ruled against Viacom in favor of YouTube in the case, and Viacom appealed. A year ago, an appeals court panel revived the case. That group of judges said the safe-harbor provision protected Internet services companies from liability if they lacked specific knowledge that a piece of infringing material existed -- or if they acted quickly to remove the material once notified.

The case was sent back to Stanton. Viacom argued that it was impossible to prove that YouTube had specific knowledge that certain clips were protected.

But Stanton determined that the sheer volume of content uploaded onto YouTube made it impractical for the video site to know when an infringing clip appeared. The burden, the judge said, fell to Viacom to alert YouTube when unauthorized uses of its copyrighted material popped up on the site.

On Thursday, Viacom vowed to appeal once again.

Read More... http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-youtube-prevails-copyright-suit-viacom-20130418,0,5832848.story

YouTube, Viacom may or may not go to Trial with over a Billion Dollar Lawsuit

The Second Circuit overturned the lower court's decision to throw out Viacom's billion dollar claims that YouTube hosted copyright infringing material. In doing so, the appeals court agreed with much of what YouTube had to say about the high threshold of knowledge of infringements before ISPs are required to expeditiously remove material, but also determined that the federal judge hadn't properly considered whether YouTube may have had actual knowledge of specific infringing clips or whether YouTube might have essentially willfully blinded itself from having that knowledge.

It was a mixed decision for both the parties, and legal observers have debated the meaning of the ruling.

Now the case is back at the lower court before U.S. District Court Louis Stanton for further consideration, but before the judge issues the next big ruling that decides whether the case will be dismissed a second time or proceed to trial, the judge will have to figure out an even more fundamental question: Which side bears the burden of showing requisite knowledge of infringements at the summary judgment stage? Both sides are now accusing the other of shifting that burden.

Last November, Google's YouTube made a new attempt to win the case on summary judgment. That bears at least a little bit of emphasis: YouTube went first.

In a motion that only became unsealed on Friday, the defendant said that Viacom couldn't make a showing that it had actual or red-flag knowledge -- that "there is no evidence from which a jury could find that YouTube actually knew, or was aware of facts and circumstances from which it was apparent, that any of Viacom’s clips-in-suit were infringing, let alone that YouTube failed to expeditiously remove any such clips."

Viacom responded with a somewhat startling admission. "It has now become clear that neither side possesses the kind of evidence that would allow a clip-by-clip assessment of actual knowledge," said the plaintiff.

But Viacom continued:  

                  "It is not Viacom’s burden to prove specific knowledge or awareness. That factual issue is relevant only to the affirmative defense that YouTube is asserting; knowledge of specific infringements is not an element of Viacom’s copyright infringement claims against YouTube. At trial, it will be enough for Viacom to prove that the clips-in-suit were on the website, along with some other elements of infringement liability. It follows that Defendants cannot win summary judgment by pointing to the absence of record evidence that would allow a jury to decide which clips-in-suit were specifically known to senior YouTube executives."
So it's YouTube's responsibility to go first with the evidence? Not so fast...

According to YouTube's reply:

                  "Viacom does not even try to make the showing of clip-specific knowledge required by the Second Circuit’s ruling. It instead reverses course and claims that it is YouTube’s burden to affirmatively establish its lack of knowledge as to each specific clip-in-suit. Viacom’s novel burden-shifting argument is wrong. It is contrary to the Second Circuit’s decision, all the case law, and the structure of the DMCA itself. Viacom also ignores the record. YouTube has identified more than sufficient evidence of its lack of knowledge of infringement — including the very fact that the voluminous record in this case contains no evidence of such knowledge. Viacom’s inability to offer any evidence from which a jury could find that YouTube had actual or red-flag knowledge of even a single clip-in-suit requires that summary judgment be entered in YouTube’s favor."
Both sides are now proceeding to spar on what might be said to be a bit of a procedural conundrum.

Remember, this is a pre-trial motion. Inferences are supposed to be drawn to the party opposing a summary judgment motion -- in this instance, Viacom.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/viacom-youtube-copyright-lawsuit-judge-431981

Universal Music Publishing, Fullscreen Ink YouTube Licensing Deal

The deal will allow video creators working with Maker or Fullscreen to use songs from the Universal catalog.

The dual deals will allow video creators who work with either Maker or Fullscreen to use songs from the Universal catalog -– either as covers or as soundtracks and samples for their videos. The potential revenue upside for publishers is initially small, in the millions of dollars a year. But that could grow significantly, depending on how often videographers use Universal’s songs and how popular those videos become, according to executives close to the negotiations who did not want to be named because the terms of the deals are confidential.

The agreements represent a significant advance in how rights holders make money from a rapidly growing medium whose viewership is measured in the billions. By plugging into networks such as Fullscreen and Maker, Universal instantly taps into a higher advertising rate than the average YouTube video. That’s because advertisers are often willing to pay a premium to make sure their ads are attached to YouTube videos distributed by networks such as Fullscreen and Maker, which tend to have better production values and more engaging content, often targeted at valuable demographics.

“This is a groundbreaking arrangement that encourages the use of our music,” UMPG Chairman and Chief Executive Zach Horowitz said in a statement. “We hope it serves as a template for all other multi-channel networks.”

The agreement averts what could have been an ugly conflict between large YouTube networks and music publishers, who were concerned that some user-generated videos in their networks using copyrighted music inadvertently were not properly paying royalties. Rather than file lawsuits, which would have been the automatic response just a few years ago, music publishers worked with the networks to reach a mutually beneficial deal. The result is an arrangement that lets YouTube videographers select from a library of millions of Universal’s songs and create videos that generate revenue for themselves, the network and publishers.

Universal and other music publishers already make money from user-generated YouTube covers, though not very efficiently. Through legal settlements and private agreements, YouTube gives publishers a choice of whether to take down the video with the cover song, or place an ad against it. If the publisher chooses to place an ad, as most do, YouTube then pays publishers 15% of net advertising revenue when a user generated video uses a master recording in a video and 50% when it is a cover.

The key problem, however, is that cover songs are tough to identify on a massive scale. Google’s technology for detecting copyrighted songs can’t always detect melodies, and many publishers don’t have the resources to scour through the 72 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. As a result, many cover videos slip past and aren’t monetized, leaving publishers frustrated.

“It hasn’t been easy for publishers to locate all those covers in order to begin monetizing them,” said George Strompolos, who founded Fullscreen just two years ago. Strompolos had previously worked at Google and in 2007 co-created YouTube’s Partner Program, which allows a select group of about 1 million YouTube creators to share the ad revenue generated by their videos.

“Once publishers have found those covers and allowed ads to be placed against them, those videos have usually peaked,” Strompolos said. “With us, publishers start monetizing covers from the very first view. They don’t have to be in reactionary mode” of having to identify covers in the first place.

By doing direct deals with networks such as Fullscreen and Maker, publishers are able to cast a tighter net. The agreements could also provide a framework for publishers to forge deals with other large YouTube networks that also aggregate millions of videos.

In addition, Fullscreen says it is giving publishers a higher split of their revenue than the average take on YouTube, though Strompolos would not disclose its exact terms with Universal.

Fullscreen, which works with more than 700 aspiring musicians, already has a similar arrangement with Warner/Chappell Music Inc.

Fullscreen and Maker are examples of a burgeoning economy that’s mushrooming around YouTube as the online video platform cranks up efforts to better monetize its social video service.

Maker, for example, is a network of more than 5,000 YouTube channels that, together, have about 140 million subscribers. Some of those channels are produced in-house at Maker’s facilities in Culver City, Calif., but many are created by independent videographers. Among the company’s most popular music shows and personalities are “Epic Rap Battles,” The Gregory Brothers, Mike Tomkins and Snoop Lion’s WestFestTV.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/universal-music-publishing-fullscreen-ink-421764