Depends on who you ask, of course.

Executives at Veoh say Judge A. Howard Matz has given them a new lease on life, and at least some of the company’s investors are doing some chest-beating. Universal, the world’s largest music label, says it’s confident it will win an appeal.

You can get the same split opinion by asking two different companies that happen to be locked in a similar fight. Executives at Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which is trying to fend off a copyright suit filed by Viacom (VIA), say the Veoh ruling bolsters their case. You can guess what Viacom says.

The gist of the fight: Universal says Veoh didn’t try hard enough to keep illegally uploaded material off the video site; Veoh says it made a good-faith effort. Matz agreed with Veoh and tossed out Universal’s claims.

Even if you disregard the posturing, it’s fair to say there’s a genuine debate over the ruling’s meaning. Veoh, along with some of my bloggy colleagues, is treating the decision as the final word on Web copyright disputes, or at least those that involve the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

And Matz certainly slapped Universal around. But it’s worth noting that copyright owners have lost Web cases in the Ninth District before, but ultimately won on appeal. Ask Grokster, the now-defunct file-sharing network that dissolved after a 2005 Supreme Court ruling.

You can read all of Matz’s judgment at the bottom of this post. But this excerpt, in which he argues that simply having illegal material on your site isn’t a crime, and neither is knowing about it (at least, in a general sense), gives you a good idea of Matz’s thrust and tone:

No doubt it is common knowledge that most websites that allow users to contribute material contain infringing items. If such general awareness were enough to raise a “red flag,” the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose of “facilitat[ing] the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age,” and “balanc[ing] the interests of content owners, on-line and other service providers, and information users in a way that will foster the continued development of electronic commerce and the growth of the Internet.”

Legal debate aside, the ruling does give a practical benefit for Veoh. It allows the company to fetch a higher price on the auction block.

CEO Dmitry Shapiro has been shopping the site to bidders over the summer, and as of a few months ago, he was willing to accept less than the $70 million investors like Time Warner (TWX), Goldman Sachs (GS) and former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner have poured into the site.

Selling a Web video site in 2009 is a tough challenge without a handicap, but the lawsuit was a big one. It was a huge time-and-money suck–Veoh may have spent as much as $6 million fighting the case in the last two years–and more important, the unresolved case was a huge liability. Who wants to buy a lawsuit?

Now, Shapiro says, Veoh’s options include not selling at all. He insists that some of Veoh’s existing backers are willing to recapitalize the company and that new investors might join in as well.

I’ll take him at his word, but if I had to bet, I’d wager that Veoh ends up getting acquired sooner than later. Maybe quite soon–the company has a board meeting today.

Wonder what they’ll talk about?

VEOH –

Still here? How about that? You get a bonus video! (But be warned: Pacino chews up a lot of scenery here, and there is some impassioned cursing.)

On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that APPLE intentionally embeds code in the Mac OS that causes the Mac OS to malfunction on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System. Upon recognizing that a computer hardware system is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System, the Mac OS will not operate properly, if at all, and will go into what is colloquially known as ‘kernel panic.’

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE is engaged in anticompetitive conduct that prevents the proper operation of the Mac OS on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System–a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System–thereby forcing customers of the Mac OS to purchase–and only purchase–an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System if they wish to have the Mac OS operate sans kernel panic or an infinite loop.”

That’s an intriguing allegation. Risky though, since it’s also an admission that Psystar has circumvented the technological copyright-protection measures built into OS X, just as Apple claims in its amended complaint against the company. Apple contends Psystar has done so illegally, in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar says that’s impossible because the kernel panic-forcing code at issue here isn’t a copyright-protection measure.

Who’s right? Who knows? But if it’s Apple, then Psystar presumably is guilty of circumventing Apple’s copyright protection systems under the DMCA. And that’s a felony, because Psystar profited from the circumvention.

“I am extending the temporary restraining order because I’m not satisfied in the fact that this technology is not in violation,” Patel explained. “There are serious questions about copyright violations. There are questions about violations of the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and violations of these companies’ agreement.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Rent. Rip. Restraining Order.
• StealDVD? Well, You Were Asking for It…
• Sue. Rent. Rip. Return.
• Rent. Rip. Return.

“RealNetworks took this legal action to protect consumers’ ability to exercise their fair-use rights for their purchased DVDs,” the company said in a statement. “We are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases. For nearly 15 years RealNetworks has created innovative products that are fully legal, great for consumers, and respectful of the legitimate interests of content creators and rights holders. RealDVD follows in that tradition. We expect to successfully defend our right to make RealDVD available to consumers and consumers’ rights to use it.”

We’ll see, I guess. Clearly the silly little “RealDVD is for saving a DVD you own” disclaimer attached to the software isn’t going to cut it with Hollywood. I imagine we’ll be hearing from the Motion Picture Association of America before the day is out.

The judge disagreed. And his reasons for doing so will undoubtedly come into play in the Viacom case and others as well. “Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users,” the judge wrote. “Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the third-party software. … But Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh’s users.”

Google (GOOG) was understandably quite pleased with the ruling: “It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights,” Zahavah Levine, YouTube’s chief counsel,” said in a statement.

Viacom (VIA) was equally displeased, understandably. “Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners,” the company said in a statement. “Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement–conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA.”