UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________ )VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., )COMEDY PARTNERS, )COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC., )PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, )and BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION )LLC, ))Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 1:07-cv-02103 (LLS)v. ) (Related Case No. 1:07-cv-03582 (LLS)) ECF CaseYOUTUBE INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and )GOOGLE, INC., ))Defendants. )) __________________________________________)

VIACOM’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONFOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND INAPPLICABILITYOF THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT SAFE HARBOR DEFENSE

Stuart J. Baskin (No. SB-9936)John Gueli (No. JG-8427)Kirsten Nelson Cunha (No. KN-0283)SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022Telephone: (212) 848-4000Facsimile: (212) 848-7179Paul M. Smith (No. PS-2362)William M. Hohengarten (No. WH-5233)Scott B. Wilkens (

pro hac vice

)Matthew S. Hellman (

pro hac vice

)JENNER & BLOCK LLP1099 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001Telephone: (202) 639-6000Facsimile: (202) 639-6066Susan J. Kohlmann (No. SK-1855)JENNER & BLOCK LLP919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022Telephone: (212) 891-1690Facsimile: (212) 891-1699March 18, 2010

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. VIACOM’S OWNERSHIP OF THE WORKS IN SUIT...................................................1II. INFRINGEMENT OF THE WORKS IN SUIT ON YOUTUBE......................................2III. DEFENDANTS’ KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT CONCERNING INFRINGEMENTON YOUTUBE...................................................................................................................2A. The YouTube Founders’ Knowledge and Intent Concerning Infringement onYouTube.................................................................................................................2B. Google’s Knowledge and Intent Concerning Infringement on YouTube.............31IV. DEFENDANTS’ DIRECT FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM INFRINGEMENT............53V. DEFENDANTS’ RIGHT AND ABILITY TO CONTROL INFRINGEMENT..............62VI. DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT AS DIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND AS BEYONDSTORAGE AT THE DIRECTION OF A USER.............................................................75

LEGEND

For the purposes of Viacom’s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Inapplicability of the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct Safe Harbor Defense, the following abbreviations shall be used:“Hohengarten Decl.” shall refer to the declaration of William M. Hohengarten, datedMarch 5, 2010, filed herewith.“Hohengarten ¶ ___ & Ex. __,” shall refer to the paragraphs of the HohengartenDeclaration and the Exhibits attached thereto, respectively. Any Exhibit attached to theHohengarten Declaration that was produced during the course of this litigation and marked withBates numbers is identified by its beginning Bates number, followed by a pinpoint citation.Pinpoint citations shall refer to the page number(s), and paragraph or line numbers, of the citeddocument. In some instances Hohengarten Declaration Exhibits have been manually paginatedfor ease of the Court’s reference. Where used, parentheticals indicate the nature of the item cited – e.g., deposition transcripts (“Dep.”) or other declarations (“Decl.”). Thus, by way of illustration, “Hohengarten ¶ 7 & Ex. 4, GOO001-00011355, at GOO001-00011356” would refer to Exhibit 4 to the Hohengarten Declaration, which has the beginning Bates number GOO001-00011355, and would refer specifically to the page of that Exhibit marked with Bates number GOO001-00011356. And, “Hohengarten ¶ 366 & Ex. 332 (Eun Dep.) at 200:1-10” would refer to the deposition of Google employee David Eun, which is referenced at Paragraph 366 of andattached as Exhibit 332 to the Hohengarten Declaration.“Solow Decl.” shall refer to the declaration of Warren Solow, a representative of Viacom,dated March 3, 2010, filed herewith. The Solow Declaration is attached as Exhibit 2 to theHohengarten Declaration.