Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a service provider's general awareness of widespread infringement on its platform is insufficient to constitute the 'actual knowledge' or 'awareness of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent' required to disqualify it from safe harbor protection; the provider must have knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements.
Facts:
- Defendant YouTube, owned by Google, operates a website where users can upload and share video files free of charge.
- Users uploaded tens of thousands of videos containing plaintiffs' (Viacom's) copyrighted works without authorization, resulting in hundreds of millions of views.
- YouTube was generally aware that copyright-infringing material was being placed on its website by users.
- YouTube profited from advertising revenue generated from pages on its website, including pages that displayed infringing content.
- YouTube designated a DMCA agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement.
- When Viacom provided YouTube with specific takedown notices identifying infringing materials, including a mass notice for approximately 100,000 videos, YouTube acted expeditiously to remove the identified content.
Procedural Posture:
- Viacom International, Inc., and other copyright holders (plaintiffs) sued YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc. (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to protection under the DMCA's § 512(c) 'safe harbor' provision.
- Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that defendants were not eligible for safe harbor protection because they had actual knowledge of infringement and financially benefitted from it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a service provider's general awareness that its platform is used for copyright infringement disqualify it from the DMCA's § 512(c) safe harbor protection, even if it expeditiously removes specific infringing materials upon receiving proper notification?
Opinions:
Majority - Stanton, J.
No. A service provider's general awareness of infringement does not disqualify it from the DMCA's § 512(c) safe harbor; knowledge must be of specific, identifiable infringements. The court reasoned that the text and legislative history of the DMCA make clear that Congress intended to place the burden of policing copyright infringement on the copyright owners, not the service providers. The statutory phrases 'actual knowledge' and awareness of 'red flags' refer to specific instances of infringement, not a generalized awareness of a proclivity of users to post infringing material. To hold otherwise would contravene the DMCA’s explicit provision under § 512(m) that providers do not have an affirmative duty to monitor their services for infringement. The court found that YouTube's compliance with the DMCA's takedown procedures, such as swiftly removing content upon receiving specific notice from Viacom, demonstrated that the notification regime was working as intended. The court distinguished this case from inducement liability cases like Grokster, which involved peer-to-peer networks not covered by the § 512(c) safe harbor and focused on conduct aimed at promoting infringement, a different standard than the DMCA's knowledge requirements.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the scope of the DMCA's safe harbor, establishing that generalized or abstract knowledge of infringement is not enough to create liability for a service provider. By requiring knowledge of specific infringing files, the ruling placed the burden of identifying and reporting infringement squarely on copyright holders. This interpretation provided crucial legal certainty for user-generated content platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and others, allowing them to operate and scale without the potentially crippling obligation of proactively monitoring all user uploads. The case solidified the notice-and-takedown framework as the primary mechanism for copyright enforcement on these platforms, shaping the operational and legal landscape for online service providers for years to come.
Unlock the full brief for Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.