Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Viacom v. YouTube (2d Cir. 12-3-10) (plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief)

Viacom v. YouTube (2d Cir. 12-3-10) (plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Charles Colman Law, PLLC on Oct 24, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

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

 
 
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

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