Jonathan Richards
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
The English Premier League is suing YouTube, the video-sharing website, for alleged copyright infringement.
The league said that the site, which is owned by Google, was engaged in a "deliberate strategy" of "promoting and encouraging massive copyright infringement" by enabling excerpts of games to be posted.
YouTube already faces a $1 billion (£500 million) lawsuit from Viacom, the entertainment company, which accuses the site of uploading approximately 160,000 unauthorised clips from television shows.
Both claims are denied by YouTube's lawyers.
In documents filed with a court in New York, the Premier League accused YouTube of having "knowingly misappropriated" the footage of games "without payment of license to the owners of the intellectual property".
The league said it had been deprived of revenues associated with its matches, which were seen by an estimated audience of 2.59 billion people in 204 countries.
Footage from at least sixteen matches had appeared on the site, the document claims, including, most recently, from the Arsenal v Fulham game on April 29.
The league claims: "The Defendants have adopted a cynical and self-contradictory strategy designed to perpetuate the lawful exploitation of valuable property rights." The documentation added that they were "fully aware" that their business model "violates laws protecting the copyright content that they have misappropriated".
A search for "premier league football" on YouTube today threw up 917 results, including footage of recent Arsenal games and several 'greatest goal' collections.
In a statement, Google said that the lawsuit "threatens the way people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression over the internet".
"Most content owners understand that we respect copyrights, we work every day to help them manage their content, and we are developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better," Kent Walker, general counsel at Google, said.
Google's defence relies on so-called "safe harbours" in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 which protects content-hosting sites such as YouTube and Craigslist so long as they take down copyright-infringing material when a copyright owner requests.
A spokesman for YouTube said that it worked actively with content owners to take down unauthorised material and provided them with tools that "can prevent the reloading of copies of the same video clip after it has been removed from the service".
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
While I agree with Mike from Preston who says that the Prem League don't own football, they do own the rights to The Premiership and this can not be disputed. If such people want to record their local sunday league game and post that, I'm sure the prem won't care one bit as they are not argueing over football, just their competition.
Google saying the lawsuite "threatens the way people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression over the internet" is pure rubbish, it just protects content owned by other people and I'm sure if all these posters supporting Google were having their content distributed for nothing they wouldn't be happy either.
Paul Rayment, leeds,
stop taking it all too seriously for heavens sakes!
Rob, Manchester,
Just after WW2, the government restricted the price of a ticket to 1s 3d, in order that as many as possible could see the games. Rightly understanding that football is a working class game followed, and loved, some might say worshipped, by the poorer sections of society.
What has happened to British football, the grandfather of the game? Televison has without a doubt, enabled once again, the poorest, and most fervant of supporters to watch the teams they love in action, even though they cannot afford the rising cost of live matchday tickets. But it is a doubleedged sword, as this case highlights.
Nobody owns football? The people pay the prices for the tickets, the shirts, accessories, salaries, we fund the business of football, but we can never own the football.
Who do the "Premiership" think they are? They are not football. How can you place a copyright restriction on football? As Bill Shankly once said, it is much more important than life and death. They should remember that.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England
Just after WW2, the government restricted the price of a ticket to 1s 3d, in order that as many as possible could see the games. Rightly understanding that football is a working class game followed, and loved, some might say worshipped, by the poorer sections of society.
What has happened to British football, the grandfather of the game? Televison has without a doubt, enabled once again, the poorest, and most fervant of supporters to watch the teams they love in action, even though they cannot afford the rising cost of live matchday tickets. But it is a doubleedged sword, as this case highlights.
Nobody owns football? The people. We pay the prices for the tickets, the shirts, accessories, salaries, we fund the business of football, but we can never own the football.
Who do the "Premiership" think they are? They are not football. How can you place a copyright restriction on football? As Bill Shankly once said, it is much more important than life and death. They should remember that.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England
If i film a football match on either a camera or mobile phone or scenes of my town I OWN THE COPYRIGHT to those pictures weather stills or moving. The football league can go to hell as far as i am concerned. it is not their job to chase people who put TV footage on the web that is the job of the tv companies. thay are barking mad.
mike, preston, UK
This compensation culture is getting beyond ridiculous. Here's yet another example of a financial behemoth suing a good faith organisation for revenue they never lost. So by their logic, I didn't pay to watch the match live because I can later see the goals on YouTube? The fact they can afford trumped-up lawsuits like this speaks volumes about what hurt must have been done to their profitability. How about next they prosecute everyone bringing a camera into the ground? Then they can move onto anyone owning a picture of any player, and finally anyone mimicking a goal celebration. I could be their lawyer.
Chris, London,