The suit(pdf) filed by video sharing site Veoh against Universal Music Group turns everything around on the traditional system of copyright law.

Veoh’s argument, like Google’s answer to the Viacom suit enters new territory based on theoretical societal changes that have taken place as a result of the democratization of media. Both companies put the onus on the user, and argue that as a result they cannot be held liable.

Google has argued that Viacom’s complaint:

threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression

The Veoh argument is much more succinct. Veoh is simply an internet “service provider.” They are protected by the Terms of Use all users must agree to prior to uploading content. And because all content is uploaded by third parties who acknowledge they are the rights holders Veoh is not responsible for any infringement.

Veoh claims to have done more than is required under the DMCA, and as a result is seeking relief from a potential future suit UMG has threatened. While the suit is against Universal, if Veoh wins, it would set a precedent protecting them from similar suits by all rights holders whose copyrights have been similarly infringed.

What is so unique about this is that Universal and other copyright holders have for years been comfortable knowing that the high cost and exclusivity of content creation required producers to work with them because of built-in entertainment industry safeguards. Networks and Studios have developed policies requiring all material to be licensed and approved by E&O folks before being distributed to the public.

These safeguards all fell apart once online music distribution and online video came in. The industry responded to this disruption with the DMCA and began sending takedown notices in bulk, paying temps $11 an hour to troll for unlicensed material online. Most of these notices are sent for long tail content which is freely available but rarely viewed.

The problem is that the online video distribution model offers no way to predict whether a piece of content will be viewed 10 times of 10 million times. The amateurs creating 99% of the online video out there are not making any money. Requiring them to pay license fees for something no one views is ludicrous.

Instead what is needed is a system requiring material to be licensed when used by professional new media content producers. The entertainment industry is no longer run only by those with deep pockets. Music and stock footage should be accessible at a reasonable cost to those producing video professionally at all levels.

The entertainment IP licensing firms have had it good for a long time, they can fight it all they want, but sooner or later they too, will need to adjust to the new media environment.

The National Legal & Policy Center today posted a list of the Top 50 movies and television programs that are widely available through Google Video and YouTube, in efforts to call attention to The Big G’s lack of attention to copyright protection.

Their intent is to “expose the pirating of copyrighted material by finding and posting as many apparently pirated works as possible.”

In case anyone thought they were bluffing, they were kind enough to post a PDF with screenshots.

I am a staunch advocate for the protection of copyrights. And I’m sure that we’ll find a technologically sound and financially beneficial solution to distributing media in a digital environment.

But I would like to know, however, why they put Miami Vice at #6 when its only been viewed 663 times. Yes, I see that the chart is ordered by “Days Posted.” But 663 times over 276 days is roughly 2.5 views per day. Jesus Camp with its whopping 48 views? Bewitched with 242 views over 207 days? 1.1 view a day. It seems a stretch to say that piracy is a $2.3 billion loss for the movie industry when Miami Vice makes your Top 10 list. To be clear, I’m not supporting piracy in any way shape or form. Just pointing out a minor flaw in the way they are presenting their evidence.

The NFL’s announcement that they will severely limit the length of online video on non-league sites is only the latest news in a trend by professional sports leagues to increase control over their online video content. The NFL wants NFL.com to be the only place you watch pro football online and this is bad for fans.

Continue Reading at Tilzy.tv

CNet’s Greg Sandoval explores the impact of P2P file sharing on Hollywood movie releases. Do they build buzz or bust ticket sales?

Personally, I don’t believe that file-sharing helps build buzz. Its the result of buzz. People want to see a movie without standing in line, sitting in a bad seat, and paying for an overpriced ticket. But they download because they already have made the decision whether or not to see the film. Just not how they’ll see it.

How do you see it?

This whole Digg fiasco involving distribution of an AACS processing key used to unlock the DRM on HD-DVD and BlueRay disks has raised some big questions. In the web 2.0 era of media democracy how can intermediaries work without being held responsible for user content?

The YouTube liability argument is clear - videos that are not licensed are physically hosted on their servers. But in the case of Digg and companies like Bittorrent the content being “dugg” or the torrent being downloaded is taken from third party sources. The company simply exists an efficient hub for data transfer - And users expect it to be unfiltered.

Digg’s decision to “go down fighting” will be interesting to watch. For all intents and purposes the damage is done - the fact that the key is out there is old news - If it wasn’t mass-distributed Digg it would have been somewhere else. But the larger question of the culpability of user-generated content aggregators like Digg will need be hashed out in a courtroom.

Whatever the outcome of the Viacom-Google lawsuit, this is a landmark case and the result will have enormous implications on the future of online media.

Google’s answer to the Viacom complaint filed last night lays the groundwork for a more lenient interpretation of the DMCA and stresses the importance of freedom of information versus the rights of copyright holders.

Google argues that Viacom’s complaint challenges the “careful balance” of the DMCA:

By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for internet communications, Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.

This trial also has implications beyond the Court’s interpretation of the DMCA. Among the twelve defenses offered by Google is fair use - which allows content creators to use unlicensed copyrighted material in certain situations particularly commentary and parody. If this case goes to trial there will be judgments that change the way our legal system treats media creators, distributors and rights holders.

The video below serves both as an explanation of the lawsuit and an example of how a user can alter content to make it acceptable under fair use: