However - here is something. In a project carried out by KLipcorp a live football match was analysed for live Piracy. In the main domestic market for the match the match was available on a free to air basis and therefore the expectation was that piracy would be limited. In addition to domestic market distribution there were a further 7 international broadcast partners.

 

Analysis showed a minimum of 19 illegal distributors both through P2P networks and more traditional webstreaming. The pirates were running pre-stream ads and embedding ad sense code in order to make money from the streaming. A few of the more optimistic pirates were seeking to derive PPV revenue. Freed from rights and production costs the pirates have the best looking economic model around.

 

Very clear breaches of copyright and trademark law were taking place and virtually no measures were taken by rights holders or broadcast partners to limit the piracy. This perhaps mirrors the attitude taken by the broadcasters to YouTube in its early days - the threat was not recognised until the brand and audience had been built.

 

The era of exclusivity being a reality in broadcast agreements is over as the consumer now is aware of the option to watch an illegal stream online and it remains to be seen how quickly the broadcasters and rights holders will respond to this threat.  

 

With rumours suggesting that LimeWire will face damages of $1 trilllion this is a fascinating lecture for all those involved in the Digital Economy. To view a short excerpt please click on the window opposite or CLICK HERE to visit www.legaltraining.tv  

On the 23rd June the United States District Court gave summary judgement that YouTube were entitled to DCMA "safe harbour" protection in respect of publishing content owned by ViaCom as long as they followed DCMA guidelines.

This may be perceived as a victory for YouTube but the judgment made absolutely clear that sites like YouTube must remove illegal content "expeditiously" or would lose the safe harbour status. YouTube escaped liability as when asked to remove content they had done so quickly.

A few excerpts from the Judgment of Louis L. Stanton

"However, if the service provider becomes aware of a "red flag" from which infringing activity is apparent, it will lose the limitation of liability if it takes no action"

Interestingly goes on, quoting from Senate Report 45 "Section 512 does not require use of the takedown and notice procedure". Therefore a "red flag" can exist when a copyright owner has not used the takedown procedure of the service provider."

The report goes on ".......a service provider would have no obligation to seek out copyright infringement, but it would not qualify for the safe harbour if it had turned a blind eye to red flags of obvious infringement. "

So in this case and on these facts YouTube had done enough. No doubt ViaCom will appeal but in any event this has very much narrowed down the room for manoeuvre enjoyed in the past by the publishers of illegal content. Maybe ViaCom have lost this battle but are a step closer to winning the war.

Of further interest was that Lime Group, Fung and Grokster were distinguished out as they were file sharing P2P networks which are "not covered by the safe harbour provisions of DCMA 512(c).

Voltage Pictures, producers of the award winning Hurt Locker, are suing 5,000 illegal viewers of the movie for amounts between $1500 (if the pirate admits liability) and $150,000 (if the case goes to trial). In a suit filed in a district court in Washington D.C they say;