У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:
Если кнопки скачивания не
загрузились
НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу
страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube | 676 F.3d 19 (2012) The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or the DMCA, was passed to help balance the protection of copyrights with internet service providers’ wish to freely distribute materials online. To protect providers from liability for copyright infringement by users who stored copyrighted material on their networks, the DMCA created so-called safe harbors that effectively placed the burden of identifying infringing content on copyright holders. Viacom versus YouTube concerned how much a provider needed to know about its users’ infringement to be disqualified from safe-harbor protection. YouTube was founded in 2005 to help people to share video clips on the Internet. The website was soon getting over a billion daily views, and users were uploading massive amounts of content. Users had to agree to YouTube’s terms of service, which included promising not to upload copyrighted material, but they didn’t always observe this prohibition. The American media conglomerate Viacom, the Premier League, and several other networks and studios sued YouTube in 2007. They alleged direct and secondary copyright infringement of their works based on the public performance of those works without authorization on YouTube’s website. The district court found that YouTube qualified for safe-harbor protection under section 512(c) of the DMCA because it didn’t have actual knowledge of specific events of infringement. It granted summary judgment to YouTube. Viacom appealed to the Second Circuit. It argued that YouTube didn’t qualify for safe-harbor protection because it knew about the infringement and because it was willfully blind to specific infringing activity. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/viacom-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/viacom-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries