Viacom International, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.

Filing 505

FRAP 28(j) LETTER, dated 12/22/2011, on behalf of Appellee Google, Inc., Youtube, Inc. and Youtube, LLC, RECEIVED. Service date 12/22/2011 by CM/ECF.[480170] [10-3270]

quinn emanuel
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

ANDREW H. SCHAPIRO
[phone]

[e-mail]

December 22, 2011
Ms. Deborah Holmes
Ms. Kimberly Gay
Case Managers, Clerk’s Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Viacom Int’l, Inc., et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., No. 10-3270;
The Football Ass’n Premier League, et al. v. YouTube, Inc. et al., No.
10-3342 (argued Oct 18, 2011 (Cabranes, Miner, Livingston))

Dear Ms. Holmes & Ms. Gay:
YouTube writes to notify the Court of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in UMG
Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 09-55902 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011),
affirming a summary-judgment ruling that Veoh, a video-hosting service similar to
YouTube, is protected by the §512(c) safe harbor.
Shelter Capital is directly on point here, addressing the proper application of
the DMCA’s provisions regarding (1) knowledge, (2) control, and (3) storage. On
each, the court adopted YouTube’s understanding of the statute, while rejecting the
arguments that appellants have presented. The Ninth Circuit:
•

Refuted plaintiffs’ argument that the DMCA’s knowledge/awareness
provisions are triggered by “general knowledge,” holding instead that the
statute requires “specific knowledge of particular infringing activity” (Op. at
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES |

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO |

21081-85). Cf. YouTube Br. 29-35; YouTube Supp. Br. 1-5.
•

Found that Veoh was entitled to summary judgment because there was no
evidence of any specific material it knew was infringing but failed to remove
(Op. at 21085-88). YouTube Supp. Br. at 5-6.

•

Reaffirmed that the DMCA does not “impose investigative duties on service
providers” and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that—in addition to removing
videos identified in takedown notices—“Veoh should have taken the initiative
to use search and indexing tools to locate and remove from its website any
other content by the artists identified in the notices” (Op. at 21082-86).
YouTube Br. 63-66; Class Br. 45-46; Viacom Reply 14.

•

Rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the DMCA’s “control” provision codifies
common-law vicarious liability and adopted Judge Stanton’s holding that a
“service provider must be aware of specific infringing material to have the
ability to control that infringing activity” (Op. at 21089-97). YouTube Br. 5861.

•

Held that the “storage” provision is not limited to services that merely store
videos, but instead “encompasses the access-facilitating processes that
automatically occur when a user uploads a video”—including those that make
videos playable on “portable devices” (Op. at 21065, 21072-80). YouTube Br.
77-81; YouTube Supp. Br. 7-9.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling thus continues the unbroken line of cases rejecting
copyright owners’ efforts to rewrite the DMCA and confirms that the decision below
must be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Andrew H. Schapiro
Andrew H. Schapiro
Counsel for YouTube

2