IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
V
IACOM
I
NTERNATIONAL
I
NC
.,
C
OMEDY
P
ARTNERS
,
C
OUNTRY
M
USIC
T
ELEVISION
,
I
NC
.,
P
ARAMOUNT
P
ICTURES
C
ORPORATION
,
B
LACK
E
NTERTAINMENT
T
ELEVISION
LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.Y
OU
T
UBE
,
I
NC
.,
Y
OU
T
UBE
,
LLC,
G
OOGLE
,
I
NC
.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OPENING BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Paul M. SmithWilliam M. HohengartenScott B. WilkensMatthew S. HellmanJ
ENNER
&
B
LOCK
LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 639-6000Theodore B. OlsonMatthew D. McGillG
IBSON
,
D
UNN
&
C
RUTCHER
LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036(202) 955-8500Susan J. KohlmannJ
ENNER
&
B
LOCK
LLP
919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022(212) 891-1600Stuart J. BaskinS
HEARMAN
&
S
TERLING
LLP599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022(212) 848-4000
10-3270
Case: 10-3270 Document: 59 Page: 1 12/03/2010 159159 72
i
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plain-tiffs-Appellants Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Tele-vision, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment TelevisionLLC, submit the following statement identifying their parent corporations and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of their stock:Each of the Plaintiffs-Appellants is, directly or indirectly, a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Viacom Inc., a company publicly traded on the New York Stock Ex-change. No publicly traded company owns 10% or more of the stock of ViacomInc.
Case: 10-3270 Document: 59 Page: 2 12/03/2010 159159 72
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageINTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................6
A.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.................................................6
B.
YouTube Builds A Business Based On Infringement..........................8
C.
YouTube’s Infringement-Based Business Persists After GooglePurchases YouTube.............................................................................15
D.
The District Court Proceedings...........................................................17
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................19
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................22
I.
The DMCA’s Safe Harbor Does Not Protect YouTube’sIntentional Facilitation Of Copyright Infringement............................22
A.
YouTube’s Failure To Take Action To Stop InfringingActivity Known To It Excludes YouTube From TheDMCA Safe Harbor..................................................................22
1.
The Record Conclusively Demonstrates ThatYouTube Was
At Least
“Aware Of Facts Or Circumstances From Which Infringing Activity IsApparent”........................................................................23
2.
YouTube’s Willful Blindness To Its Users’ Acts of Infringement Satisfies Even The District Court’sErroneous Requirement Of URL-SpecificKnowledge......................................................................34
Case: 10-3270 Document: 59 Page: 3 12/03/2010 159159 72
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
