P. 1
Google brief in Viacom v. Youtube

Google brief in Viacom v. Youtube

Ratings: (0)|Views: 146 |Likes:
Published by Daniel Ballard
Google's brief asserting that its YouTube service is immune from copyright liability in the Viacom v. Youtube case.
Google's brief asserting that its YouTube service is immune from copyright liability in the Viacom v. Youtube case.

More info:

Published by: Daniel Ballard on Mar 19, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2011

pdf

text

original

 
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALFILED UNDER SEALUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 VIACOM INT’L INC., ET AL.,Plaintiffs,v. YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL.,Defendants.)))))))))ECF CaseCivil No. 07-CV-2103 (LLS)THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONPREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, ET AL.,on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated,Plaintiffs,v. YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL.,Defendants.))))))))))))ECF CaseCivil No. 07-CV-3582 (LLS)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT
David H. KramerMaura L. ReesMichael H. RubinBart E. VolkmerW
ILSON
S
ONSINI
G
OODRICH
& R
OSATI
PC650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304(650) 493-9300 Andrew H. Schapiro A. John P. ManciniMatthew D. IngberBrian M. WillenM
 AYER
B
ROWN
LLP1675 BroadwayNew York, New York 10019(212) 506-2500
 Attorneys for Defendants
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
iINTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND..................................................................4 A. YouTube.......................................................................................................41. How YouTube Works ..........................................................................42. The Quantity And Diversity Of Videos Available On YouTube........53. YouTube’s Extensive Efforts To Help Copyright Owners.................9B. Viacom........................................................................................................11C. The Putative Class Plaintiffs....................................................................13D. The Clips In Suit........................................................................................14E. The DMCA Safe-Harbor Provisions..........................................................16SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................................................................19 ARGUMENT...............................................................................................................21I. THE DMCA SAFE HARBOR PROTECTS YOUTUBE AGAINST LIABILITY FOR ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ..............................................................21 A. YouTube Meets The Threshold Qualifications For Safe-HarborProtection...................................................................................................211. YouTube Is A “Service Provider......................................................222. YouTube Has Registered A Designated DMCA Agent....................223. YouTube Has Adopted And Implemented An AppropriateRepeat-Infringer Policy.....................................................................23a. YouTube Has Adopted An Appropriate Repeat-InfringerPolicy.........................................................................................23b. YouTube Informs Its Users Of Its Repeat-InfringerPolicy.........................................................................................24c. YouTube Implements Its Policy In A Reasonable Manner.....244. YouTube Accommodates Standard Technical Measures.................26B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Involve “Storage At The Direction Of A User”............271. YouTube Stores And Streams Videos Through AutomatedProcesses Initiated By Users............................................................272. Section 512(c) Protects Services That Have AutomatedProcesses To Facilitate User Access To Stored Material ................28
 
TABLEOFCONTENTS
(continued)
Page
iiC. YouTube Did Not Have Knowledge Of The Alleged Infringements And Responded Expeditiously To Takedown Notices For The ClipsIn Suit. .......................................................................................................301. Plaintiffs Have The Burden Of Showing That YouTube HadKnowledge Of The
Specific
Infringing Activity That They Allege.................................................................................................312. YouTube Did Not Have Actual Knowledge Of The AllegedInfringements....................................................................................323. There Are No Facts Or Circumstances Known To YouTubeFrom Which The Alleged Infringements Were “Apparent”.............33a. There Is No Evidence That YouTube Was Actually Aware Of Any Supposed “Red Flags” ......................................33b. Plaintiffs’ Clips In Suit Cannot Be “Red Flags”......................35(i) It Would Not Have Been Apparent What Many Of The Clips In Suit Even Were, Much Less That TheyWere Infringing................................................................37(ii) Viacom’s Extensive And Varied Use Of YouTubeFor Marketing Negates Any Argument That The Appearance Of Viacom Content Indicates “Obvious”Infringing Activity ...........................................................39(iii) Viacom’s “Leave Up” Practices Further Undermine Any Argument That The Presence Of Its MaterialIs A “Red Flag” ................................................................45(iv) The Array Of Authorized Uses Of And ComplexOwnership Issues Surrounding Plaintiffs’ WorksDefeats Any Claim That YouTube HadDisqualifying Knowledge.................................................49(v) Fair Use And
De Minimis
Use Further NegatePlaintiffs’ Ability To Show Knowledge............................534. YouTube Responded Expeditiously Upon Receiving Notice Of The Claimed Infringements..............................................................55D. YouTube Lacks The Ability To Control The Alleged Infringing Activity.......................................................................................................581. YouTube’s Control Over Its System Does Not Give It ControlOver Infringing Activity ...................................................................58

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
rashmi1357 liked this
Meenal Agarwal liked this
yagneshroyal liked this
elvinrahimov liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->