The Football Association Premier League, which is behind the
Premiership, has filed its case in the District Court for the
Southern District of New York. It claims that YouTube is profiting
from a knowing violation of its copyright in the league and in
footage of games in that league.
"[The] defendants, which own and operate the website
YouTube.com, have knowingly misappropriated and exploited this
valuable property for their own gain without payment or license to
the owners of the intellectual property," said the claim made to
the Court. "Defendants have continued and will continue their
brazen acts of wilful copyright infringement unless enjoined by
this Court."
The claim is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Premier
League and music publisher Bourne Co and "all other similarly
situated", according to Court documents.
The case attacks the defence which Google and YouTube have
always used when attacked: that it is entitled to "safe harbor"
protection under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA), which
means that it does not have to pre-check content it allows to be
put on YouTube.
To enjoy "safe harbor" protection, a service provider must take
down infringing material when told of its existence, which YouTube
claims it does.
"Fully aware that this business model violates laws protecting
the copyrighted content that they have misappropriated on a massive
scale, defendants have adopted a cynical and self-congratulatory
strategy designed to perpetuate the unlawful exploitation of the
Class's valuable property rights," says the claim.
"For example, defendants have feigned blindness and an inability
to reduce the wholesale infringement that occurs, constantly and
unremittingly, every day on the YouTube website, distorting the
balance created by Congress and forcing the victims – the content
producers themselves – to go through the meaningless exercise of
pointing out to defendants what defendants plainly already know:
that there is copyrighted material being exploited on the YouTube
website without the authorization of the rights owners."
The claim says that YouTube should not qualify for "safe harbor"
protection because it is not merely 'storing' material at the
request of a user. "Defendants take multiple voluntary acts to
encourage and/or facilitate infringing activity, including (without
limitation) by creating, on behalf of users, the HTML code
necessary to 'embed' videos on other sites," it says.
The suit requests a court injunction to stop YouTube displaying
content belonging to the League and Bourne, and payment of the
companies' legal costs and punitive damages.
The case follows a similar one lodged by media giant Viacom
earlier this year, in which that company claims damages of $1
billion.
