IO is a company that holds and owns a number of registered copyrighted for a variety of adult entertainment products.  IO alleged that it found its own copyrighted clips from IO films on the Veoh website.  None of the alleged clips contained copyright notices except one.  Veoh is a site that relies on content contributed by users. Veoh is similar to a site like YouTube.  IO made the case that Veoh had to break protection codes to upload videos into the Flash format that the site uses.  By doing this, IO argued that Veoh became a direct infringer. 

The judge determined that Veoh was still protected by the safe harbor provisions.  Veoh does not actively oversee the uploading of content.  Veoh has an established system where the software reformats user content automatically once uploaded.  The system makes the content accessible immediately to other users.  Veoh has default parameters for the submission of content by a third party.  The automated system is started with the Veoh user.  Everything is put into motion with the user.  Veoh does not preview videos before they are uploaded.  The uploading is due completely to the users.  The court gave a summary judgment for Veoh.  Based on the DMCA, the judge said that Veoh was in fact protected by the Safe Harbor Provision, and the site complied with the statutes.   

The key detail about this case is that IO did not send any takedown notices.  This is critical to my thesis that there is a severe violation and abuse of power.  IO did not even follow proper procedures.  There was no take down notice sent.  Instead, IO went straight to court.  The notice and take down course of action was completely skipped.  Instead of stopping piracy, the DMCA in this case ended up limited consumer choices for a period of time.  The videos were taken down and  content made unavailable.

    This is a case where IO Group, the maker of adult entertainment videos, sued Veoh, a YouTube-like online video site, for hosting IO’s content (uploaded by Veoh's users) without the company’s consent.  But instead of sending Veoh a takedown notice, IO directly sued Veoh in the US District Court.  Veoh claimed it was protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, and asked for the case to be dismissed.  The judge denied IO’s request for summary judgment, determining that Veoh qualified for the protection of safe harbor.  The case is interesting because it deals with what happens when a copyright holder is so unsatisfied with the amount of work that a service provider does to prevent infringement that is skips the notice and takedown procedure all together.  IO believed that Veoh’s policies were inadequate and needed to be more proactive in preventing repeat offenders from creating multiple accounts and continuing to upload infringing content.  The Judge disagreed with this notion, and ruled that a “policy is unreasonable only if the service provider failed to respond when it had knowledge of the infringement.”
    IO’s claim in this case will be an example of an extreme view in the notice and takedown debate.  While I will likely be arguing for a reform of the procedure outlined in Section 512 because it is too easily abused, IO thought the process was so insufficient as to not even use it, and instead sought immediate relief in court.  The judge’s affirmation that Veoh had properly followed the law and that it did not need to take additional preventative measures to stop the infringement represents a blow to copyright holders who think the notice and takedown provision of the DMCA does not go far enough.  While many think that notice and takedown system fails because it is too heavy handed, IO believes the opposite.  Even though they lost, it is still worthwhile to discuss their alternative opinion, which will provide a sense of balance to the paper.

Judge Stanton ruled in favor of Viacom in some aspects of his decision and in favor of Youtube in others. In favor of Youtube, he denied Viacom access to Youtube’s search code, noting that it is a trade secret that cost Youtube thousands of man-hours to produce and that it will not help Viacom determine the extent to which Youtube is liable. This decision came after numerous programming experts testified that there is currently no search code in existence with the ability to distinguish between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works. Similarly, the judge denied Viacom access to the Video ID Program. The judge also denied Viacom’s request for access to all videos currently available on the Youtube servers. Viacom claimed this would help them determine how much knowledge Youtube had relating to infringing videos, but Youtube’s response that they have been entirely accommodating to Viacom’s requests was favored by the judge. The judge stated that there is “no compelling need…to justify the analysis of millions of pieces of information.” The judge similarly denied access to the Advertising Schema, stating that this was both a trade secret and not necessary information. However, the judge favored with Viacom in many aspects, in an attempt to allow them to research how much power Youtube has over infringing videos on its website. He mandated that Youtube produce information about all videos that have already been removed so as to determine the amount of copyright infringing videos that have been available in the past. Most interestingly, he allowed Viacom access to all information about who has viewed which videos and how many times they have been viewed. This includes IP addresses, screen names, and videos viewed for every user. Viacom states that this will allow them to know, proportionally, whether copyrighted videos are typically viewed more often or less often than non-copyrighted videos. The judge also allowed Viacom access to the Google Video Content database so as to allow Viacom to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing activity.

This decision is interesting because it details the opinions of a judge who has considered both Viacom and Youtube’s opinions. He allows Youtube to retain several of its valuable coding secrets, but makes large concessions to Viacom to allow them to determine Youtube’s knowledge of infringing material. The reason for this decision can likely be linked to the relatively young age of cases like this. The DMCA has only been active for 10 years and many aspects of website liability for users infringing on copyrights are still uncertain. By allowing Viacom access to Youtube video records, the court is essentially hoping that Viacom will either show that Youtube is guilty of indirect liability or that Youtube has no control over the infringement beyond its current efforts. Thus, the impact of this court decision will likely come from Viacom’s analysis of Youtube video information. In my paper, I plan to further examine the same topic: whether or not Youtube is completely free from liability for infringing material.

Tim Wu from Slate Magazine discusses the development of legal protection against copyright infringement for internet-based services. He argues that Youtube may be safer from copyright litigation than many might believe. He notes that “in the early 1990s…Hollywood and the recording industry worked hard to make Internet companies responsible for any…copyright infringement that happened via the Internet.” Had this view, the idea that internet companies are liable for any infringement that occurs on their sites, been adopted by Congress, few if any Web 2.0 companies would exist today. Fortunately, Lobbyists working for firms controlling a large portion of internet traffic worked to convince Congress that “copyright law threatens to put a damper on the expression of ideas on the internet.” This forced Hollywood to settle for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects “Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users,” or in other words, sites using user-generated content. These sites are protected by the Safe Harbor clause in the DMCA which protects content sites and ISPs so long as they comply with takedown requests submitted by copyright holders. Wu notes that Youtube may be liable if it prosecutors can prove that it is aware of specific infringing material on its site. It may also be liable due to the fact that there is a search option on its services. Wu’s most interesting argument, however, is the idea that Hollywood and the recording industry may actually be fonder of the DMCA than previously believed. He states that these industries get the best of both worlds: if they do not want a clip on Youtube, they can simply issue a takedown notice and have the offending clip removed. If the infringing clip appears to be giving a boost to TV or music ratings, however, they can simply allow the clip to remain on Youtube. Thus, Youtube is protected by the idea of “tolerated use” rather than something like “fair use.”  While sites like Grokster were not covered under the Safe Harbor law, Youtube is protected by this provision of the DMCA.
Wu accurately conveys the crucial role that the DMCA plays in protecting internet content sites and ISPs, which is a crucial argument in my paper. Had the DMCA never been created, Internet sites could be just as liable for copyright infringing content as stores are for selling physical pieces of copyright infringing material. However, the lawmakers clearly anticipated the importance of user-generated content for e-commerce and thus created a protection clause for sites like Youtube. While Wu mentions that Youtube may be liable for its “search” tools, a similar clause in the DMCA may equally protect Youtube from prosecution for this feature. 512D states that sites which allow users to search for material are not liable for any copyright infringing items that users locate using search options. Thus, the DMCA successfully anticipates many aspects of these Web 2.0 sites and prevents content industries from suing services like Youtube.

On March 13, 2007, Viacom International Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against Youtube claiming massive copyright infringement by the defendant. Viacom filed the suit after sending takedown notices to Youtube demanding over 150,000 copyrighted videos be removed from its servers. In its complaint, Viacom notes “millions have seized the opportunities digital technology provides to express themselves creatively.” However, Viacom argues that Youtube has “harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale.” Youtube, the complaint urges, has built a library of infringing video clips in order to increase profit. Rather than attempting to remove all infringing videos, Youtube “has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the Youtube site…to detect infringing videos and send takedown notices to Youtube.”  Viacom claims that Youtube increases its own value at the expense of copyright holders through the following methods: displaying advertisements above infringing videos, allowing users to embed infringing files onto other websites to draw users to Youtube and subsequently increase ad revenue, and permitting users to keep copyrighted videos hidden from the public. Viacom also notes that Youtube hosts the videos on its own servers, rather than simply acting as a conduit through which users pass files. This, in Viacom’s interpretation, makes Youtube the primary copyright infringer as it is the entity that is actually “performing” the copyrighted footage.

Youtube is one of the more influential websites in the development of Web 2.0. The website has essentially ushered in a new age of internet democratization by giving all users the ability to create and host content. Viacom’s complaint fails to take several important copyright issues into account, however, decreasing the lawsuit’s validity in several key issues. First and foremost, it assumes that Youtube has a clear intention of hosting copyright infringing content. While the court decided that Grokster, in MGM Studios v. Grokster, did not have sufficient non-infringing uses to escape liability, Youtube was developed as a website where average internet users can upload home videos. When asked about a memory associated with Youtube, users will typically discuss a humorous home movie they saw rather than an illegal movie clip. Similarly, Viacom assumes that Youtube is responsible for policing its site for all copyrighted material, failing to mention the DMCA once in the lawsuit. The Safe Harbor clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, removes service providers from liability for any copyrighted material that users upload to their servers, specifically if the content provider removes material that a copyright holder insists is infringing. Youtube immediately removes material upon receipt of a takedown notice, typically without even ensuring that the entity which issued the notice is actually the copyright holder. Youtube is similarly protected by the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, which protects sites which do not induce others to commit copyright infringement. Rather, Youtube encourages users to produce their own works.

In early 2007, Viacom sued Youtube for extensive copyright infringement. Youtube claimed protection under the Safe Harbor law in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but arguments still abound regarding the extent to which Youtube is liable for copyrighted files uploaded to its servers. In my paper, I will attempt to answer that question: how liable is Youtube for copyright infringement committed by its users and what can it do to ensure protection from further liability? I will begin my bibliography, and my paper, with the original Viacom lawsuit, followed by articles detailing the emergence of the DMCA. I will then cite several articles and cases arguing both for and against Youtube's innocence. This will be followed by several examples of steps Youtube can take to shield itself from liability. I will finish my argument by citing the judge's decision in the Viacom case, which still fails to offer a definitive answer of whether or not Youtube is liable for infringement.

       This article written by Fred von Lohmann, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, examines how YouTube would fare under the copyright law and, in particular, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  According to the author, the stakes are tremendous because YouTube’s website hosts infringing copyrighted material but it also facilitates the free flow of information and spawns original and transformative creativity.  The author opines that in light of YouTube’s business operations it legally should be shielded by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.  However, he cautions that YouTube must continue to walk a careful line so as not to run afoul of the safe harbor requirements.

       The article examines several of the DMCA’s requirements mandated by Congress.  First, the author examines YouTube’s policy in implementing the termination of repeat infringers and the removal of infringing content.  He concludes that YouTube’s written policy and implementation meet the DMCA’s requirements concerning termination, as well as notice and take-down.  Second, the author finds no obvious pirate sites on YouTube which is an important factor in analyzing the knowledge requirement.  Third, in examining the direct financial benefit test, Mr. von Lohmann explains that it represents an important hurdle for service providers.  In the case of YouTube, he finds that it has chartered a cautious course by putting advertising only on search result pages rather than on the clip pages themselves.  He suggests, however, that YouTube may feel increasing pressure to develop innovative business opportunities other than by limiting the placement of advertising on its website.  In that regard, YouTube will have to experiment with different revenue strategies that do not run afoul of the DMCA. 

       For purposes of my paper, this article provides valuable information on YouTube's business operations.  According to the author, YouTube largely complies with the requirements mandated by the DMCA, but the financial benefit test could be problematic for it.  In determining whether YouTube should successfully meet the requirements of the DMCA, an examination of YouTube's operations will be critical and this article will be helpful in that regard.

       In denying Viacom’s allegations of direct and secondary copyright infringement, YouTube will seek to obtain the protection of the safe harbor provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. 512.  A finding that YouTube satisfies the DMCA’s safe harbor requirements would immunize it from monetary damages or injunctions even if it were found to have directly or secondarily violated the copyright laws.  The statute explicitly mandates a series of threshold requirements (17 U.S.C. 512(i)) and core requirements (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)) that a service provider must meet to be entitled to safe harbor protection.  Most problematic for YouTube will be whether it meets the DMCA’s core requirements under section 512(c)(1)(A),(B), and (C).  Subpart A requires that the service provider not have actual or apparent knowledge that the material on its network infringes on the rights of a copyright holder.  The legislative history will be examined to determine the scope of “apparent knowledge” including an examination of the “red flag” test stated in the Congressional Reports dealing with the DMCA.  Subpart B requires that the service provider not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity where it has the right and ability to control such activity.  Of critical importance to Subpart B will be YouTube’s business model for generating revenue from advertisements.  Subpart C requires the service provider, upon notification by the copyright holder of claimed infringement on its website, respond “expeditiously to remove” the infringing work.  Both Viacom’s arguments and YouTube’s counter arguments will be examined in an effort to determine whether YouTube’s removal policy conforms to the DMCA requirements.

       My paper will address some of the conflicting cases that have examined the various sections of the DMCA described above and rely on the legislative history at H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (1998) and S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) to amplify congressional intent.  Critical to my analysis will be the application of the facts of this lawsuit to the language of the DMCA, taking into account its legislative history, to determine whether YouTube should meet the requirements of the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

       This article written by Michael Fricklas, general counsel at Viacom, sets forth Viacom’s legal and factual arguments supporting its position that YouTube should not be afforded safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  First, he argues that YouTube is not the kind of entity envisioned by Congress in enacting the DMCA.  YouTube, he claims, is more than a storage service provider; it is an entertainment destination.  Second, Viacom’s attorney claims that YouTube’s policies with regard to infringing content are selectively implemented with more proactive action given to companies in which it has a licensing agreement.  Third, the rampant unauthorized copyrighted material on YouTube demonstrates that it has the requisite knowledge of infringing activity.  He cites as further support for a finding of knowledge the fact that YouTube creates a list of “featured videos” on its home page.  Fourth, Mr. Fricklas states that YouTube receives a direct financial benefit from infringing activity.  He contends that infringing content generates popularity and more viewers which increase advertising revenue.  Fifth, he asserts that YouTube has the ability to control content.  As evidence of this fact, Mr. Fricklas states that YouTube’s managers remove pornography.  Finally, as a policy matter, he claims that requiring copyright owners to patrol the web on an ever burgeoning number of sites would be unfair.  Forcing YouTube to obey copyright laws would not stifle innovation.  Instead, Viacom’s attorney argues that protecting intellectual property spurs investment and thereby the creation of new technologies.  It is, therefore, critical that the law ensure that YouTube respect the rights of copyright owners, like Viacom.

       Mr. Fricklas’ arguments are, of course, partisan.  However, they shed light on Viacom’s perspective and the facts that it may rely upon during the lawsuit.  The article also crystallizes some of the hurdles that YouTube will have to overcome if YouTube is to receive safe harbor protection.  In reaching my conclusion as to whether YouTube should meet the DMCA’s requirements, it will be necessary to present and analyze Viacom’s arguments.  This article will be helpful in that regard.

       In this case, Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., Costar, the owner of numerous copyrighted photographs, sued Loopnet, an internet company that listed commercial real estate on its website which included some of CoStar’s copyrighted photographs, for direct and contributory copyright infringement.  As in the YouTube case, Loopnet sought refuge in the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  One of the critical issues for YouTube to successfully invoke the protections of the DMCA will be whether or not it receives a direct financial benefit from the infringing material on its website.  The Costar case sheds light on this element of the DMCA.  

       In the Costar case, the court ruled that Loopnet did not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing photographs.  In reaching that conclusion, the Costar court relied on the legislative history of the DMCA and related case law.  The court found significant that Loopnet did not charge a fee for posting any real estate listing, whether it was with a photograph (thus potentially infringing) or without a photograph (non-infringing).  It rejected Costar’s claim that Loopnet financially benefited by having infringing works on its website which enhanced the attractiveness of its website to potential customers.  The Costar court found that this type of financial benefit was an indirect benefit, not the type of direct benefit required by section 512(c)(1)(B) of the DMCA.  However, there is another line of cases (one of which is included in my Annotated Bibliography – Perfect 10 v. Cybernet) which concludes that there is a direct financial benefit where the infringing material acts as a draw that attracts subscribers to the website.  That line of cases could be problematic for YouTube.  In the case of YouTube, the manner in which it generates income will be critical to the application of the financial benefit test.  Specifically, YouTube’s advertising revenue will be considered in light of the Costar financial benefit analysis as well as the alternative analysis that focuses on the potential draw of the infringing material.

       Perfect 10, an adult entertainment website, sued Cybernet Ventures, an online age verification service, for infringing photographs found on its affiliated websites.  In this case, the court refused to provide Cybernet with safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).   The reasoning of the court provides some insights into whether or not YouTube will be protected by the DMCA.

       In determining whether Cybernet would be afforded safe harbor protection, the court analyzed each of the DMCA’s requirements.  The court looked to the legislative history as guidance and relied upon Congress’ mandate to “take a common-sense, fact based approach not a formalistic one.”  Overshadowing much of the court’s discussion was evidence of Cybernet’s attempt to undermine the intent of the DMCA to forge a working relationship between copyright holders and service providers.  Of particular importance was the fact that Cybernet, after receiving notice from the copyright holder, failed to expeditiously remove infringing material from its system evidencing bad faith and undermining congressional intent. 

       Also significant for purposes of my paper is the Cybernet court’s analysis of the DMCA’s direct financial benefit test.  Here, the court found a direct financial benefit where Cybernet’s income was based on the number of new users to affiliated sites including infringing sites.  The court found that the quality of Perfect 10’s copyrighted images attracted new subscribers.  Thus, the infringing images acted as a draw which increased Cybernet’s revenue.  This case could be problematic for YouTube since Viacom has argued that the infringing works on YouTube’s website attracts more users which in turn drives higher advertising revenue.  Accordingly, the manner in which YouTube generates its revenue will be highly relevant to the financial benefit test.  Whether YouTube satisfies the financial benefit test will be analyzed under Cybernet’s reasoning, other court opinions, and the legislative history that interprets the direct financial benefit test.