IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Last updated

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameIO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.
DecidedAugust 27, 2008
Docket nos. "5:2006cv03926".
Citation 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132
Case history
Prior actionnone
Subsequent actionnone
Holding
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted because they are eligible for DMCA's safe harbor
Court membership
Judge sittingHoward R. Lloyd
Keywords
DMCA, Safe Harbor, Internet Television, Copyright

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2008), is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube .

Contents

Facts of the case

Veoh is a self-described Internet Television Network that allows users to share video content over the internet at its site, www.veoh.com. [1] Users have uploaded hundreds of thousands of videos to the site since it first launched in February 2006. [1] Users of the site have the choice to either download or stream the movie file. [2] In addition to the user-generated content, such as family gatherings, films by aspiring filmmakers, and job interviews, Veoh also hosts a number of videos that have been uploaded by users other than the copyright owner. Some of these videos belong to Veoh's content partners, such as CBS. [1] In these instances, Veoh has permission to display the works. However, Veoh has also received a number of takedown notices related to allegedly copyrighted material posted to the company's site. [1] Veoh asserts that it has received notice for roughly seven percent of the videos that have been uploaded. [1]

Video upload process

Before users are allowed to upload videos to veoh.com, they are required to register with the website. [3] As part of this process, they are required to submit a username, password, and email address. [3] When the user selects a video to upload, Veoh also prompts them to add: a title and description; keywords or tags; applicable content categories; and content rating. [3] Once Veoh receives the file, its systems confirm that it is a video file with a compatible codec. It also extracts any metadata associated with the file and stores all the information related to the file in its database. [4]

Since users are permitted to submit the video files in a variety of formats, Veoh uses third-party software to automatically convert each of the videos into the Flash format. [5] In addition to the Flash conversion, Veoh also automatically extracts thirty-two "screencaps" of the video. Sixteen of these screencaps contain the same resolution as the video itself. [2] These screencaps are not available for users to view or access. The other sixteen screencaps are of a lower-resolution. One of these will be displayed in the user's search results while the entire set will be displayed to the end user to assist them in deciding if they would like to download or watch the movie file. [6]

Veoh's terms

When a user registers with veoh.com, and before they are allowed to upload any content, they must agree to abide by the Veoh's Terms of Use such that:

any User Material that you make available to the Veoh Service may be made freely available by Veoh through the Veoh Service, including without limitation for download by other users, and that this permission is made and granted in consideration of your use of the Veoh Service and is nonexclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable and transferable. . . .

Veoh shall have no obligation to monitor any User Material. However, Veoh and its agents shall have and do reserve the right to monitor any User Material from time to time for any lawful purpose. Veoh may, without notice to you, remove or block content of any User Material from the Veoh Service, including disabling access to such User material that you have downloaded through the Veoh Service. Veoh reserves the right to terminate your use of the Veoh Service if we determine that you have violated these Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy.

Veoh requires all users of the Veoh Service to comply with copyright and other intellectual property laws. Accordingly, you may not publish or make available any User Material that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law, or that otherwise violates the Acceptable Use Policy. You represent and warrant that you have all rights necessary to publish and distribute any User Material made available by you through the Veoh Service and that such User Material conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy. You agree to indemnify and hold Veoh harmless from and against any liability, claims, losses, demands or damages arising out of or relating to your violation of these Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy.

As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing activities on the Veoh Service and reserves the right to terminate access to the Veoh Service, and remove all User Materials posted, by any persons who are found to be repeat infringers (i.e., persons found to have uploaded copyright infringing User Material on more than two occasions). [7]

Veoh also had an Acceptable Use policy that stated:

Veoh respects the rights of copyright owners to control commercial uses of their material, and expects our users to do the same. You are responsible for complying with all federal and state laws applicable to the content available through the Veoh Services, including copyright laws.

Accordingly, Veoh reserves the right to terminate the service account of anyone who it learns is using the Veoh Services in violation of copyright law. [7]

Veoh has since updated its Terms of Use policy [8] and created a separate Copyright policy. [9]

Users were reminded of its terms during the upload process. Upon the first notice Veoh receives that a user has uploaded infringing content, Veoh terminates that user's account, disables all content uploaded by that user, and blocks that user's email address to prevent them from creating a new account. Additionally, Veoh creates a digital fingerprint of the infringing file to detect other copies of it on Veoh's servers and to prevent the same file from being uploaded at a later date. [3]

Veoh's employees will also perform spot checks of newly uploaded videos on occasion to check for compliance with its policies. [6] During these checks, employees check to make sure the proper rating has been assigned to movies containing sexually explicit material or reveals obvious copyright infringement. [6] If a movie is found to be in violation of its policies, Veoh disables access to it. [6]

Lawsuit

IO Group is one of the copyright holders that had their copyrighted films uploaded to Veoh without their permission. [10] IO Group noticed that ten of its films were available on veoh.com in varying lengths from six seconds to around forty minutes. [10] Instead of notifying Veoh with a takedown notice after IO Group had initially discovered the clips, IO Group filed a lawsuit on June 23, 2006. [10] IO alleged Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement. [11] Around this same point in time, Veoh had independently determined that it would no longer allow adult content on its site. [10]

District Court ruling

The issue was before the court on a cross motion for summary judgment. Ordinarily, a court would evaluate whether the defendant was guilty of infringement before evaluating whether the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions apply. However, the Court decided it was "appropriate and more efficient" to begin by addressing whether Veoh was eligible for protection under § 512(c). [12]

DMCA safe harbors

Threshold requirements

In order for Veoh to be eligible for one of the Safe Harbors, it needs to satisfy the following thresholds:

  1. It must be a service provider. [13]
  2. It must adopt, inform, and reasonably implement a policy that terminates the account of repeat infringers on the service provider's system [14]
  3. It must accommodate, and not interfere with, standard technical measures utilized by copyright owners to identify their works. [15]

In this case, IO did not dispute that Veoh was a service provider. Nor did IO dispute that Veoh adopted and informed its end users of a policy regarding repeat infringers. Finally, IO did not assert that Veoh tried to interfere with any of IO's standard technical measures. [16] IO did dispute that Veoh's application of its infringer policy was reasonable [16] and asserted that it was a triable issue vitiating Veoh's motion for summary judgement.

While the DMCA does not explicitly define what reasonably implemented means, the Court was able to look to the binding precedent set by the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th 2007). In that case, the Ninth Circuit defined Reasonable to mean "if, under 'appropriate circumstances,' the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe copyright." [17]

The Court found that Veoh had put forth evidence of a working notification system that adequately addressed infringement notices because Veoh had identified a designated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement; Veoh had generated and utilized digital fingerprints; Veoh terminated user accounts after a single warning; Veoh disabled all content uploaded by the infringing user; Veoh blocked the infringing user's email address from opening a different account; Veoh had terminated 1,096 users under its repeat infringer provision; and Veoh had often responded to takedown notices on either the day it was received or shortly thereafter. [18]

IO wasn't convinced. They believed that Veoh's policy came up short because it did not prevent terminated users from re-registering with a different e-mail address. [19] IO argued that Veoh should be held to a standard where they track users by their actual names or their IP Address. The Court did not agree and also noted that IO did not present any evidence that indicated that blocking users through the use of actual names or IP addresses would be any more reasonable than using the user's e-mail address. (The opinion mentions Wikipedia in FN8 as the source for information pertaining to the operation of IP addresses. [20] ) Nor was IO able to present any evidence that an actual repeat infringer had created a new account. [19]

Instead, the Court pointed out that the DMCA provisions only require that the service provider terminate the account of a repeat infringer when appropriate. The crutch to this provision centers on the service provider's requirement that it knows of the infringement. Were courts to extend that duty beyond the text, it would hinder the policies of Congress. [19] Indeed, another United States District Court had previously found that "the DMCA requires reasonable, not perfect, policies...." [21] As such, Veoh's policy of tracking infringing content was enough to satisfy the initial threshold requirement.

17 U.S.C. § 512(c)

After passing the threshold requirements, the Court turned to § 512(c)'s provision that prevents service provider liability where copyright infringement occurs as a result of the storage of the infringing material residing on the service providers system or network at the direction of a user. [22] IO argued that because Veoh was creating a Flash version of the content, along with screencaps, when it was uploaded, this infringing copy was not placed on Veoh's server "at the direction of a user." [23] IO believed that the DMCA policies were not best served by protecting the creation of infringing copies for the purposes of distribution when the only protected activity should have been storage. [23]

The Court pointed out that the language of the DMCA does not ever limit the activities to mere storage. Instead, the DMCA splits service provider into two definitions. The narrower definition is used by § 512(a) and expressly notes that the service provider may not modify the content it receives or transmits. [24] The broader definition, and the one that applies to Veoh, does not contain this narrowing characteristic. [25] The Court also noted that another court had also noted that "gateway" functions, like the one present in this case, should not act as a bar to the Safe Harbor. [26] Thus, the Court concluded that Veoh was not disqualified from § 512(c)'s Safe Harbor due to its automated process in response to user-submitted material. [27]

Red flag test

Under the Red Flag test, a service provider may lose their Safe Harbor eligibility if the Court finds that it failed to take action when the infringing activity is apparent due to the service provider's awareness of certain facts or circumstances. [28] While IO argued that its copyright registrations in the works provided constructive criticism, the Court found that none of the videos in question contained copyright notices in them. While one of them contained IO's trademark several minutes into the clip, it didn't rise to a level of awareness to impute knowledge of infringement. [28]

Safe harbor exceptions

A service provider that has otherwise met the criteria of § 512(c) can still lose its protections where it meets the common law elements of vicarious liability:

  • receives a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity AND
  • has the right and ability to control the infringing activity [29]

As to the control element, the defendant would need "both a legal right to stop or limit the directly infringing conduct, as well as the practical ability to do so." [30] While Veoh had created policies governing its systems, the pertinent question focuses on control of the infringing activity. [31] Additionally, in the context of the internet, the control elements extends beyond the ability of merely deleting the content from the service provider's server because it would be inconsistent to require an act that would also eliminate the Safe Harbor at the same time. [32] Instead, something more is required beyond the ability to remove or block access. [33]

For Veoh to be charged with the duty to exercise the requisite control, they would need to prescreen every file before publishing it. And even assuming for the sake of argument that Veoh had the capacity to review the hundreds of thousands of videos, there is no guarantee that they would be able to distinguish infringing material from non-infringing. [34] Even IO had difficulties identifying the videos it owned rights to as it dropped one title and added three more to its list of infringing works during the course of discovery. [35]

Other

The Court also touched on the below issues, but felt they were not directly related to the issue before it.

  • Flag It Feature
    • The Court did not believe that Veoh's removal of the option to report possible copyright infringement from its flagging function was convincing because it contained a link where Veoh provided users with instructions to submit a takedown notice. [36]
  • Sexually Explicit Nature of the Works
    • The Court did not find IO's argument credible whereby they argued that the video clip lacked the requisite labeling requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, and thus, Veoh should have known that no legitimate producer would have omitted the warning. However, the question of whether the federal labeling law has been violated is irrelevant to the question of whether the service provider had knowledge of the copyright infringement. [37]
  • Reliance on Wikipedia
    • Aside from the Court's main holding, the case is also noteworthy for the Court's reliance on Wikipedia in the decision. In two separate instances, the Court took judicial notice of the Wikipedia definitions of internet-related terminology -- "Flash Files" and "IP Address". The Court's use of Wikipedia is part of a growing trend in Courts throughout the country. [38]

Outcome

The Court granted Veoh's motion for summary judgment. As such, it was unnecessary for the Court to decide IO's summary judgment motion.

Additional commentary

This case and its progeny has already garnered the interests of a number of authors, which will most likely increase as technology advances. For instance, one author has suggested that the Court may have come to a different conclusion if the practical limitations of identifying infringing content through the use of simple text searches. [39] Thus, once technology evolves to the point where it becomes feasible to search the video content itself, the IO Court may come to a different conclusion. [39] Other authors look more favorable upon the decision, like Professor Edward Lee who praised the Court's IO decision noting that it did a great job in attempting to "interpret the DMCA safe harbors in a way that makes the Internet workable." [40]

There is even disagreement as to the Court's approach to analyzing both the statute and the case as some felt the Court did not properly apply the DMCA. For instance, one author felt the Court overlapped the elements of vicarious liability and contributory liability in its analysis. [41] However, Professor Eric Goldman calls it "a clean and thorough opinion . . . [that] makes a significant contribution to the precedent and teaches us a lot." [42]

Looking to the future, this case represents a preview of the stage set for the much larger battle in Viacom v. YouTube. [43] Indeed, Viacom actually intervened in the Veoh litigation and asked the court's permission to file an amicus curiae brief. [44] However, that motion was denied. [45]

Related Research Articles

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.</i>

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, was a lawsuit involving an archive of Diebold's internal company e-mails and Diebold's contested copyright claims over them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic provided pro bono legal support for the non-profit ISP and the Swarthmore College students, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veoh</span> Video streaming website

Veoh is an American video-sharing website, launched in September 2005. It was originally launched as a virtual television network application, and then became a video-sharing website in March 2006. During the mid-2000s, it was one of the largest video-sharing websites, though eventually began to be superseded by YouTube, Vimeo and Dailymotion. In February 2010, the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, until it was saved two months later by the technology company Qlipso Inc. It was later sold to blogging host FC2, Inc, who still own it as of October 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SeeqPod</span>

SeeqPod was a search and recommendation engine specifically for indexing and finding playable search results including audio, video, podcasts and Wikipedia articles that were publicly accessible on the World Wide Web. The site claimed to have indexed more than 13 million individual tracks and files. On April 1, 2009, SeeqPod filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11. The service is currently unavailable. In August 2010, Intertrust Technologies announced that it had acquired all software and patents developed by SeeqPod, Inc. via the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding. Intertrust did not acquire the domain names used by the company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 is a case where Google Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

<i>CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.</i>

CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision about whether LoopNet should be held directly liable for CoStar Group’s copyrighted photographs posted by LoopNet’s subscribers on LoopNet’s website. The majority of the court ruled that since LoopNet was an Internet service provider ("ISP") that automatically and passively stored material at the direction of users, LoopNet did not copy the material in violation of the Copyright Act. The majority of the court also held that the screening process by a LoopNet employee before the images were stored and displayed did not alter the passivity of LoopNet. Judge Gregory dissented, stating that LoopNet had engaged in active, volitional conduct because of its screening process.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. copyright court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 No. 09-55902, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which UMG sued video-sharing website Veoh, alleging that Veoh committed copyright infringement by hosting user-uploaded videos copyrighted by UMG. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Veoh is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions. It was established that service providers are "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability so long as they diligently remove infringing material upon notice of infringement".

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v Vimeo, LLC</i> 2013 US District Court case

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 972 F. Supp. 2d 500, 972 F. Supp. 2d 537, was a 2013 copyright infringement case out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The decision resolved cross-motions for summary judgment filed by a video-sharing service (Vimeo) and a pair of record labels. Vimeo sought a ruling that, as a matter of law, it was entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as to a series of copyrighted videos that were uploaded to its platform; the record labels sought the opposite ruling.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorizes another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Judge Howard R. Lloyd (August 27, 2008). "IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. (District Court opinion, page 2)" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
  2. 1 2 District Court opinion, page 7.
  3. 1 2 3 4 District Court opinion, page 5.
  4. ↑ District Court opinion, page 6.
  5. ↑ District Court opinion, page 6-7.
  6. 1 2 3 4 District Court opinion, page 8.
  7. 1 2 District Court opinion, page 4.
  8. ↑ "Veoh - Terms of Use". Veoh. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
  9. ↑ "Veoh - Copyright Policy". Veoh. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
  10. 1 2 3 4 District Court opinion, page 3.
  11. ↑ IO Group (June 23, 2006). "Plaintiff's Complaint" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2012. Retrieved March 8, 2010. at page 9.
  12. ↑ District Court opinion, page 10. See also 17 U.S.C.   § 512
  13. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(k) (2006).
  14. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A) (2006).
  15. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(B) (2006).
  16. 1 2 District Court opinion, page 12.
  17. ↑ District Court opinion, page 13 (citing Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d at 1109).
  18. ↑ District Court opinion, page 13.
  19. 1 2 3 District Court opinion, page 14.
  20. ↑ Lee F. Peoples. "The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions" (PDF). 12 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 1 (2009). Retrieved March 8, 2010.[ permanent dead link ]
  21. ↑ District Court opinion, page 15 (citing Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1104 (W.D. Wa. 2004)).
  22. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1) (2006).
  23. 1 2 District Court opinion, page 18.
  24. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(A) (2006).
  25. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B) (2006).
  26. ↑ CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Md. 2001).
  27. ↑ District Court opinion, page 20.
  28. 1 2 District Court opinion, page 21.
  29. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (2006); CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1117.
  30. ↑ District Court opinion, page 24 (citing Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. at 1173).
  31. ↑ District Court opinion, page 24-25.
  32. ↑ District Court opinion, page 25.
  33. ↑ District Court opinion, page 27.
  34. ↑ District Court opinion, page 28.
  35. ↑ District Court opinion, page 28-29.
  36. ↑ District Court opinion, page 23.
  37. ↑ District Court opinion, page 22.
  38. ↑ Cohen, Noam (January 29, 2007). "Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively". The New York Times.
  39. 1 2 Michael S. Sawyer (May 2, 2009). "Filters, Fair Use, and Feedback: User-Generated Content Principles and the DMCA". 24 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 363 (2009). SSRN   1369665.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  40. ↑ Edward Lee (January 27, 2009). "Decoding the DMCA Safe Harbors". 32 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 233, 266 (2009). SSRN   1333709.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  41. ↑ Greg Jansen. "Whose Burden is it Anyway? Addressing the Needs of Content Owners in DMCA Safe Harbors" (PDF). 62 Federal Communications Law Journal 153 (2010). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 10, 2010. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
  42. ↑ Eric Goldman (September 1, 2008). "IO v. Veoh Comments--a Terrific 512(c) Defense-Side Win". Technology & Marketing Blog. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
  43. ↑ Bruce Boyden (August 28, 2008). "IO v. Veoh: Harmful to YouTube?". Prawsblawg. Retrieved March 8, 2010.
  44. ↑ Viacom International, Inc. & NBC Universal, Inc. (August 14, 2007). "Local Rule 7-11 Motion For Administrative Relief of Viacom International Inc. and NBC Universal, Inc. or Leave to Appear and File Brief as Amici Curiae" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 26, 2012. Retrieved March 8, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. ↑ Judge Howard R. Lloyd (August 17, 2007). "Proposed Order Denying Viacom International, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Appear and File Brief as Amici Curiae" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Retrieved March 8, 2010.[ permanent dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.