Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 482

DECLARATION of Jeffrey N. Mausner in opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment #457 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(b) For Its Caching Feature [Public Redacted] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(b) For Its Caching Feature [Public Redacted] #426 , MOTION for Summary Judgment #458 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(c) For Its Blogger Service [Public Redacted] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(c) For Its Blogger Service [Public Redacted] #427 , MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(d) For Web And Image Search [Public Redacted] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Google Inc.'s Entitlement to Safe Harbor Under 17 U.S.C. 512(d) For Web And Image Search [Public Redacted] #428 , MOTION for Summary Judgment #456 filed by Plaintiff Perfect 10 Inc. (Mausner, Jeffrey)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jeffrey N. Mausner (State Bar No. 122385) Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Mausner Warner Center Towers 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, California 91367-3640 Email: [e-mail] Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERFECT 10, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,

Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) Consolidated with Case No. CV 05-4753 AHM (SHx)

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY N. MAUSNER SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S THREE GOOGLE, INC., a corporation; and MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, JUDGMENT RE DMCA SAFE HARBOR FOR ITS WEB AND Defendant. ______________________________ IMAGE SEARCH, BLOGGER SERVICE, AND CACHING FEATURE AND CONSOLIDATED CASE. (DOCKET NOS. 428, 427, AND 426) v. BEFORE JUDGE A. HOWARD MATZ Date: October 5, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 14, Courtroom of the Honorable A. Howard Matz Discovery Cut-Off Date: None Set Pretrial Conference Date: None Set Trial Date: None Set

Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, Jeffrey N. Mausner, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and admitted to practice

before this Court. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. ("Perfect 10") in this action. All of the matters stated herein are of my own personal knowledge, except where otherwise stated, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I make this declaration in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment Re DMCA Safe Harbor For Its Web And Image Search, Blogger Service, and Caching Feature (Docket Nos. 428, 427, and 426). THE COURT-ORDERED NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED DUE TO GOOGLE'S DELAYS AND NONCOOPERATION 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of portions of this

Court's Order dated May 8, 2006, Docket No. 161, with Paragraph 9, entitled "Notification System," highlighted. 3. On May 8, 2006, this Court ordered that Perfect 10 and Google "shall

cooperate in good faith to implement a notification system, which will make it as expeditious and efficient as is reasonably feasible for P10 to provide Notices of Infringement to Google and for Google to receive those notices." Preliminary Injunction Order, Docket No. 161, page 6 lines 10-14, attached as Exhibit A. The Court cited Google's "willing[ness] to `develop[] a special secure interface that would allow P10 to'... simply check boxes" for the thumbnails to which Perfect 10 claims copyrights. Id. lines 19-24. The system would have allowed Perfect 10 to "check-the-box" next to Perfect 10's claimed infringements and submit it to Google for processing. 4. Google's willingness to cooperate to develop such a system extended

no further than its Preliminary Injunction brief. I emailed counsel for Google on
1 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

May 11, 2006, as follows: As you know, Judge Matz ordered us to cooperate in good faith to implement a Notification System. Could you please let us know what Google's proposal is in this regard, and how long it will take for Google to create the system you proposed in your papers? Thanks, Jeff. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 1. 5. Two weeks later, on May 25, 2006, having received no response from

Google's counsel, I sent another email requesting a response. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 2. On June 1, 2006, Google's counsel informed me that "I haven't had a chance to close the loop with my client about your earlier question regarding the notification tool but haven't forgotten about it." A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 3. 6. At that point, Google decided to seek a stay of the preliminary

injunction order, and did not do anything regarding the notification system. On July 26, 2006, I emailed Google's counsel as follows: In footnote 5 on page 6 of the Reply [in Support of Motion for Partial Stay of the District Court's Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Appeal], you state that Google is not doing anything to implement the notification system because "the injunction has been stayed pending a ruling on this motion. The parties must first resolve the fundamental issue concerning removal before they implement the details of the injunction." First, only the removal part of the injunction has been stayed, not the entire injunction. Second, I don't see why Google cannot implement the notification system while this part of the injunction is stayed. Google could still be notified to cease displaying the images. Please contact me to discuss how we should proceed with the check the box notification system. Thank you, Jeff Mausner. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 5. 7. On July 27, 2006, almost 3 months after the Court's Order, Google's

counsel informed me that "I am checking with my client on how to proceed regarding a notification system and hope to follow up with you soon." A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 6.
2 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

Not hearing back from Google's counsel, on August 25, 2006, I again

emailed to inquire about the notification system: What is the status of the check-the-box notification system? Google is continuing to display thousands of my client's images despite an injunction which is in place. Please advise. Sincerely, Jeff Mausner A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 7. 9. On August 28, Google's counsel responded: I am not sure where this stands at the moment. As you may recall ... my principal contact at Google is away and unavailable until after Labor Day. I will check in with him on his return. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 9. 10. On September 13, 2006, I exchanged emails with Google's counsel

about the notification system. True and correct copies of these emails are attached as Exh. AA, page11. 11. On September 29, I wrote to Google's counsel: "When are you going

to get back to me with Google's proposal regarding a `check the box" notification system discussed in the Court's preliminary injunction order?" A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 12. 12. Again, on November 3, I emailed Google's counsel, asking "When

does Google plan to provide a proposal to us regarding implementing the check the box notification system, as ordered by Judge Matz six months ago?" A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exh. AA, page 13. 13. It was not until November 6, 2006, six months after the Court's Order,

that Google proposed anything to Perfect 10 with regards to implementation of the notification system. A true and correct copy of this email (without attachments) is attached as Exh. AA, page 16. There were several problems with the notification system that Google proposed, and I wrote back to Google's counsel two days later, on November 8, setting forth these problems and proposing a system that would eliminate the problems and be much easier to implement. A true and correct copy
3 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of this letter is attached as Exh. AA, pages 17-18. Oral argument at the Ninth Circuit regarding the preliminary injunction took place on November 15, 2006, and after that, Google would not even make the pretense of cooperating on a notification system. To my knowledge, Google did not do anything to implement a notification system. PERFECT 10 HAS NEVER CONCEDED THAT ITS SUIT IS NOT BASED ON THE 2001 NOTICES (GROUP A NOTICES) 14. On page 8 lines 12-14 of its Search Motion, Google states: "During

discovery, P10 produced seventeen notices from 2001 (collectively, the `Group A Notices'). [citation omitted.] P10 has conceded that its suit is not based on these alleged notices, so they are irrelevant here. Kassabian, Ex B." 15. Perfect 10 never conceded that its suit is not based on these notices.

The only thing Google cites for this proposition, Exhibit B to the Kassabian declaration, is a page from a joint discovery stipulation, which says: "Google for some reason claims that these notices are somehow relevant [sic] to the case." This is an obvious typographical error that can be seen from the context ­ it should say that "Google for some reason claims that these notices are somehow irrelevant to the case." Google obviously does not claim that the notices are relevant; Google takes the position that the notices are irrelevant. Furthermore, the very next two sentences after this statement make clear why Perfect 10 believes these notices are relevant to the case: In fact, in 2001, a) Google waited until Perfect 10 sent it 16 notices in 2001 before claiming that Google could not do anything, b) Google never suggested that there were any deficiencies in Perfect 10 notices, c) despite being ordered to do so, Google has still not identified the person who sent Perfect 10 the email in July of 2001 claiming that Google could not do anything with respect to taking down infringing material, and d) despite being ordered to do so, Google has still not produced the notices it received from copyright holders in 2001 or any DMCA log relating to those notices. That Perfect 10's notices were sufficient is evidenced by the fact that a) Perfect 10 attached actual copies of the infringed images to many of the notices, and b) Google never stated that the notices were deficient or provided any
4 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

instructions as to how to correct them if they were deficient. So the statement that was meant to be made is that Google claims that the notices are irrelevant. Furthermore, even if this was not a typographical error, it would still not be a waiver of the 2001 notices by Perfect 10. It would merely be stating that Google claims the notices are relevant, not a concession by Perfect 10 that the notices are irrelevant. 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of an email I

received from Google Tech on June 27, 2001, in response to a DMCA notice that I sent to Google on June 22, 2001. Google incorrectly stated: [T]here is nothing that Google can do to remove the offending content without the cooperation of the site administrator. ... Only an administrator can, by including code that blocks our robots or placing a request with us, prevent his/her page from being listed. Without administrator cooperation we cannot exclude material available on the Internet from our index. AUTHENTICATION OF EXHIBITS 17. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter I received

from Google's counsel, Rachel Herrick Kassabian, dated May 20, 2009, with portions highlighted. This letter makes clear that Google takes the position that it does not have to remove or disable access to usenet sites, no matter what notice Perfect 10 gives: Additionally, as Google has previously explained, it does not crawl or index Usenet servers or those portions of websites only accessible by password. If content is not indexed by Google such that there is no link to that content in Google Web or Image Search results, it is not the proper subject of a purported DMCA notice to Google, because there is no link or thumbnail to disable or remove. The inclusion in Perfect 10's purported May 7, 2009 notice of printouts of Google Web Search results for giganews.com and newsdemon.com does not change this fact. Indeed, the cover letter accompanying the May 7 purported notice acknowledges that Google's Web Search results for these sites link to login or sign-up pages, not to allegedly infringing content.
5 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

18.

Attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of articles and some

of the related comments, regarding Google's lack of compliance with DMCA procedures. These articles were printed from the websites indicated by the URL in the footer of each page, on the date shown. Portions of the articles and comments have been highlighted. 19. I took the deposition of Microsoft's DMCA agent, Judy Weston, on

May 28, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of portions from the transcript of that deposition, with portions highlighted. 20. I took the deposition of Google's expert, Dr. John R. Levine, on

February 28, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of portions from the transcript of that deposition, with portions highlighted. 21. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of this Court's Order

dated May 13, 2008, Docket No. 294, with portions highlighted. 22. I took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Alexa Internet, Inc. on

September 18, 2008. Alexa designated Derrick Pallas as its 30(b)(6) witness. Alexa has designated that transcript highly confidential. Accordingly, portions of that transcript are filed separately under seal, as Exhibit G. Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of portions from the transcript of that deposition, filed separately under seal pursuant to protective order. 23. Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Dr. Norman Zada, filed concurrently,

is a computer disk which contains, among other data, true and correct copies of Perfect 10's Copyright Registration Certificates, issued by the United States Copyright Office, for the copyrights in "the Sample" of images used in this Opposition. 24. I took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Google on December 19, 2006.

Google designated Alexander Macgillivray, its in-house counsel, as its 30(b)(6) witness. Google has designated portions of that transcript confidential.
6 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, portions of that transcript are filed separately under seal, as Exhibit H. Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of portions from the transcript of that deposition, filed separately under seal pursuant to protective order. 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of portions of

the Declaration of Alexander Macgillivray in Support of Google's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on September 26, 2005. 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of portions of

Google's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order of February 22 2008 Granting In Part Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc.'s Motion To Compel, filed on March 14, 2008 (Docket No. 258). 27. Filed separately under seal as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of

the Declaration of Heraldo Botelho in Support of Google's Memorandum in Support of Google's Proposed Form of Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to February 21, 2006 Order, without exhibits. GOOGLE'S PUBLICATION OF PERFECT 10 DMCA NOTICES ON CHILLINGEFFECTS.ORG 28. Perfect 10 has repeatedly complained to Google about Google sending

Perfect 10's DMCA notices to Chillingeffects.org, to be published on the Internet. See, e.g., Zada Decl. ¶64, Exh. 48. I also had telephone conversations with Google's attorneys regarding this. Attached hereto as Exhibit L are true and correct copies of emails between Valerie Kincaid, an attorney for Perfect 10, and Tom Nolan, an attorney for Google, in which Google takes the position that it can and will continue to publicize Perfect 10's DMCA notices on Chillingeffects.org. See also Declaration of Dean Hoffman ¶¶4, 7, 9. 29. Filed separately under seal as Exhibit N are true and correct copies of

DMCA notices that Les Schwartz sent to Google. These notices were produced by Google in discovery, and designated Confidential by Google.
7 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30.

Google redacted material from many of the documents it produced

which relate to DMCA notices and Google's response to such notices. Perfect 10 has been attempting to obtain information from Google regarding what was redacted from those documents since June 3, 2009. True and correct copies of correspondence regarding Perfect 10's attempts to obtain this information is attached as Exhibit O. 31. I took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Google on November 19, 2008.

Google designated Shantal Rands (Poovala) as its 30(b)(6) witness regarding certain topics. Google has designated that transcript highly confidential. Accordingly, portions of that transcript are filed separately under seal, as Exhibit P. Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of portions from the transcript of that deposition, filed separately under seal pursuant to protective order. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 9th day of August, 2009 in Los Angeles County, California. __________________________________ Jeffrey N. Mausner

Jeffrey N. Mausner

8 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Mausner in Opposition to Google's Three Motions for Summary Judgment re DMCA Safe Harbor

Exhibit A

Case 2:04-cv-09484-AHM-SH

Document 161

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 1 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-09484-AHM-SH

Document 161

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 6 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-09484-AHM-SH

Document 161

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 7 of 7

Exhibit AA

Page 1 of 1

Jeffrey Mausner
Fro m : Sent: To: Cc: Jeff Mausner [[e-mail]] Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:21 PM Bridges, Andrew Norm Zada; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman)

Subject: Notification System Hi Andrew. As you know, Judge Matz ordered us to cooperate in good faith to implemen t implement a Notification System. Could you please let us know what Google's proposal proposal is in this regard, and how long it will take for Google to create the system system you proposed in your papers? Thanks, Jeff.

This e-mail may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges, or which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email and delete it from his or her computer. Jeffrey N. Mausner Berman, Mausner & Resser 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1742 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] - [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

Exh. AA, Page 1

7/22/2009

Page 1 of 1

Jeffrey Mausner
Fro m : Sent: To: Cc: Jeff Mausner [[e-mail]] Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:10 PM 'Bridges, Andrew' 'Norm Zada'; 'Dan Cooper'; 'Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman)'; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Notification System Hi Andrew. I never heard back from you on this. Could you please respond. Thanks, Jeff.

From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:21 PM To: Bridges, Andrew Cc: Norm Zada; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman) Subject: Notification System Hi Andrew. As you know, Judge Matz ordered us to cooperate in good faith to implement a Notification System. Could you please let us know what Google's proposal is in this regard, and how long it will take for Google to create the system you proposed in your papers? Thanks, Jeff.

This e-mail may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges, or which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email and delete it from his or her computer. Jeffrey N. Mausner Berman, Mausner & Resser 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1742 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] - [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

Exh. AA, Page 2

7/22/2009

Page 1 of 1

Jeffrey Mausner
Fro m : Sent: To: Cc: Bridges, Andrew [[e-mail]] Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:56 AM Jeff Mausner; Golinveaux, Jennifer Bridges, Andrew

Subject: RE: Google Appeal Brief; Motion to Stay

y g p Jeff, I received it y yesterday. Thanks for checking. I haven't had a chance to close the loop with my client about your earlier question regarding the notification tool but haven't forgotten about it. client Andrew
-----Original Message----From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:44 AM To: Bridges, Andrew; Golinveaux, Jennifer Subject: Google Appeal Brief; Motion to Stay Andrew and Jennifer: Did you receive our Google Appeal Brief? Jennifer, when you hear back from Google, please call me regarding your proposed Motion to Stay; I have the information from my client. I'll be on my cell phone today. Thanks, Jeff.

This e-mail may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges, or which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. Jeffrey N. Mausner Berman, Mausner & Resser 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1742 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] - [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Exh. AA, Page 3

7/22/2009

Page 1 of 1

Jeffrey Mausner
Fro m : Sent: To: Cc: Jeff Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, June 02, 2006 10:41 PM Bridges, Andrew ([e-mail]); Norm Zada ([e-mail]); Dan Cooper ([e-mail])

Subject: Preliminary Injunction Order Hi Andrew. If Perfect 10 agreed that the language "and permanently remove" could be taken out of the PI, would Google agree that it would make its best efforts to cease displaying from its servers not only the infringing thumbnails that reside at the specific location on the servers that Perfect 10 gives the URL for, but also any other copies of that thumbnail that reside on Google's servers? Jeff.

This e-mail may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges, or which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email and delete it from his or her computer. Jeffrey N. Mausner Berman, Mausner & Resser 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1742 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] - [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

Exh. AA, Page 4

7/22/2009

Exh. AA, Page 5

Exh. AA, Page 6

Exh. AA, Page 7

Exh. AA, Page 8

Jeffrey Mausner
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bridges, Andrew [[e-mail]] Monday, August 28, 2006 4:23 PM Jef f Mausner Golinv eaux, Jennifer; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman); Bridges, Andrew Google/Perf ect 10 (RE: Notification system)

Jeff, I am not sure where this stands at the moment. As you may recall from when we discussed the timing of the appellate briefs, my principal contact at Google is away and unavailable until after Labor Day. I will check in with him on his return. By the way, today we sought and obtained a 14-day extension for our brief, which will now be due on September 19. I indicated that you had consented pursuant to our discussion when you obtained your extension. I expect an order from the Ninth Circuit shortly. Best wishes, Andrew -----Original Message----From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:46 PM To: Bridges, Andrew Cc: Golinveaux, Jennifer; 'Dan Cooper'; 'Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman)'; Norm Zada Subject: RE: Google/Perfect 10 (RE: Notification system) Andrew, What is the status of the check-the-box notification system? Google is continuing to display thousands of my client's images despite an injunction which is in place.

Please advise. Sincerely, Jeff Mausner

-----Original Message----From: Bridges, Andrew [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:48 PM To: Jeff Mausner Cc: Golinveaux, Jennifer; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman); Bridges, Andrew Subject: Google/Perfect 10 (RE: Notification system) Jeff, I'm not sure how to check with the Postal Service about first-class mail. We have on occasion experienced similar delays receiving materials from you and from
1

Exh. AA, Page 9

others. I am checking with my client on how to proceed regarding a notification system and hope to follow up with you soon. Best wishes, Andrew -----Original Message----From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:17 PM To: Bridges, Andrew Cc: Golinveaux, Jennifer; Norm Zada; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman) Subject: Notification system Hi Andrew. I did not receive Google Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Stay of the District Court's Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Appeal in the mail, until today. That is surprising, since the proof of service says it was mailed to me on July 18, more than a week ago. Could you please check to see how it could take more than a week for that to get to me in the mail? In footnote 5 on page 6 of the Reply, you state that Google is not doing anything to implement the notification system because "the injunction has been stayed pending a ruling on this motion. The parties must first resolve the fundamental issue concerning removal before they implement the details of the injunction." First, only the removal part of the injunction has been stayed, not the entire injunction. Second, I don't see why Google cannot implement the notification system while this part of the injunction is stayed. Google could still be notified to cease displaying the images. Please contact me to discuss how we should proceed with the check the box notification system. Thank you, Jeff Mausner.

This e-mail may contain information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as other privileges, or which is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Anyone who mistakenly receives this e-mail should notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. Jeffrey N. Mausner Berman, Mausner & Resser 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, California 90025-1742 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] - [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate
2

Exh. AA, Page 10

Jeffrey Mausner
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jef f Mausner [[e-mail]] W ednesday, September 13, 2006 11:41 PM 'Bridges, Andrew' Norm Zada ([e-mail]); Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman); Dan Cooper ([e-mail]) RE: P10 v. Google: notification tool

Hi Andrew. We do not reject the possibility of this, but we cannot agree until we see a proposal which explains how the tool would work. Jeff.

-----Original Message----From: Bridges, Andrew [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:01 PM To: Jeffrey N. Mausner (E-mail) Cc: Bridges, Andrew Subject: P10 v. Google: notification tool Jeff, As you know we're in the middle of preparing our fourth brief on the appeal and I'm p pretty y pp g pp focused on that at the moment but I want to follow up with you on one point about the p y p notification tool. It is Google's understanding that, once the tool is in p place, that notification g g , , would be the exclusive method for notifications to Google by P10, whether under the would g y , injunction or for DMCA purposes. Is that agreed? Please let me know. Thanks. injunction Andrew ____________________________________________ Andrew P. Bridges [e-mail] Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone [phone] Facsimile [phone] Mobile [phone] ____________________________________________

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ****************************************************************************** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

1

Exh. AA, Page 11

Page 1 of 3

Jeffrey Mausner
Fro m : Sent: To: Cc: Jeff Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, September 29, 2006 6:37 PM 'Bridges, Andrew' 'Golinveaux, Jennifer'; 'Lee, Susan'; 'Dan Cooper'; 'Norm Zada'

Subject: RE: Depositions of Google employees, Notification System And rew: Two issues: 1) When are y g g to g back to me with Google's p ) you going get g proposal regarding a "check the box" notification system discussed in the Court's preliminary injunction order? 2) When are you going to get back box " to me regarding my February 20 email? We need to get the information I requested regarding Google employees so we can take meaningful depositions, and if you will not provide Perfect 10 with the information we requested, we will have no choice but to contact Magistrate Judge Hillman next week. Sincerely, Jeff Mausner.

From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:49 PM To: 'Jeff Mausner'; 'Bridges, Andrew' Cc: 'Golinveaux, Jennifer'; 'Lee, Susan'; 'Dan Cooper'; 'Norm Zada' Subject: RE: Depositions of Google employees Hi Andrew. I left a message on your voice mail. Please give me a call to discuss this. Thanks, Jeff.

From: Jeff Mausner [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 2:04 PM To: 'Bridges, Andrew' Cc: 'Golinveaux, Jennifer'; 'Lee, Susan'; 'Dan Cooper'; Norm Zada Subject: RE: Depositions of Google employees Andrew, your understanding expressed below is simply incorrect. I made it clear throughout the telephonic conference with Judge Hillman that Perfect 10 also wanted to take depositions other than just regarding the "MEGA requests," and I specifically mentioned depositions of Google employees that have handled the processing of Perfect 10 DMCA notices. Judge Hillman agreed that the meet and confer procedure should extend to all of these depositions, and you agreed to act in good faith to identify the appropriate people who are most knowledgeable. I will call you on Monday to meet and confer regarding the names of the employees requested in my e-mail below, as well as the names of employees requested in our Document Requests 31-34. Jeff.

From: Bridges, Andrew [mailto:[e-mail]]
Exh. AA, Page 12

7/22/2009

Jeffrey Mausner
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jef f Mausner [[e-mail]] Friday, November 03, 2006 5:14 PM Andrew Bridges; [e-mail] [e-mail]; Norm Zada; Dan Cooper; Russell Frackman (Russell Frackman) FW : Perfect 10 v. Google

Letter to sner.pdf (106 K Andrew, are you available on Monday to meet and confer regarding the Rule 30b6 deposition and your attached letter? At that time, we would like the names and background information for the employees who sent the various emails mentioned in the 30b6 notice.

When does Google plan to provide a proposal to us regarding implementing the check the box notification system, as ordered by Judge Matz six months ago? Jeff.

-----Original Message----From: Bridges, Andrew [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:48 PM To: Jeffrey N. Mausner (E-mail) Cc: Golinveaux, Jennifer; Bridges, Andrew Subject: Perfect 10 v. Google Jeff, Please see the attached letter. ____________________________________________ Andrew P. Bridges [e-mail] Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone [phone] Facsimile [phone] ____________________________________________ <<Letter to Mausner.pdf>>

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. **************************************************************************** ** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

1

Exh. AA, Page 13

Exh. AA, Page 14

Exh. AA, Page 15

Exh. AA, Page 16

Exh. AA, Page 17

Exh. AA, Page 18

Exhibit B

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley
FAX: [phone]

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, California 94065 | TEL: [phone]

May 20, 2009 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Jeffrey N. Mausner, Esq. Warner Center Towers 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 910 Woodland Hills, CA Facsimile: [phone] Re: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Dear Jeff: I write in response to the purported DMCA notice Perfect 10 sent to Google dated May 7, 2009. Perfect 10 continues to send ostensible notices in a manner not compliant with the DMCA, as Google has explained in prior correspondence (including Google's August 31, 2007, October 31, 2008, and May 5, 2009 letters). Perfect 10's May 7, 2009 purported notice is in substantially the same format as Perfect 10's purported notices sent on October 16 and December 13, 2007, January 24, March 17, and July 9, 2008, and April 24, 2009. Google has explained on multiple occasions that it is unable to process Perfect 10's purported DMCA notices in this format, which do not intelligibly identify the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed or the location of the allegedly infringing content. Instead, Perfect 10's May 7, 2009 purported notice provides Google with thousands of images Perfect 10 supposedly downloaded fro m various websites, and thousands of other "screenshots" of Google search results and images. Dumping thousands of downloaded image files and "screen shots" on a DVD with a general description of how Perfect 10 found the images does not sufficiently identify the copyrighted works allegedly infringed or the locations of the allegedly infringing material. As Google's published DMCA policy states, Google requires identification
quinn emanuel urquhart oliver & hedges, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] NEW YORK | 51 M adison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10010 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone] CHICAGO | 250 South Wacker Drive, Suite 230, Chicago, IL 60606 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

51320/2934080.1N | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG United Kingdom | TEL [phone] LONDO

FAX

[phone]

TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Building, 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052 Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

of the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed and the exact web page URL or image URL of the allegedly infringing material in order to process a DMCA notice. Addit io nally, as Google has previously explained, it does not crawl or index Usenet servers or g p y explained, i Additionally, those portions of websites only accessible by password. If content is not indexed by Google p y y password. y g such that there is no link to that content in Google Web or Image Search results, it is not the g i is such proper subject of a purported DMCA notice to Google, because there is no link or thumbnail to j pp g, proper disable or remove. The inclusion in Perfect 10's purported May 7, 2009 notice of printouts of pp y, p disable Google Web Search results for giganews.com and newsdemon.com does not change this fact. gg g Google Indeed, the cover letter accompanying the May 7 purported notice acknowledges that Google's mp y g ypp g that g Indeed, Web Search results for these sites link to login or sign-up pages, not to allegedly infringing not Web link login content. Unless and until Perfect 10 cures these many deficiencies, which Google has identified on many occasions, Google is unable to take any further action in response to this defective notice. Very truly yours,

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
51320/2934080.1

51320/2934080.1

2

Exhibit C

Google's Shell Games | PlagiarismToday

Home

$ERXW

Consulting

DMCA Contacts

Stock Letters

6WRS ,QWHUQHW 3ODJLDULVP

Press

Contact

Google's Shell Games
By Jonathan Bailey · Nov 16th, 2007 · Category: Articles, DMCA, Legal Issues, Punditry

DISCLAIMER I am not a lawyer. I am just a legallyminded Webmaster/Writer frustrated with the plague of plagiarism online and doing something about it.

Anyone who is a regular reader to this site knows that, in order to get Adsense removed from a scraper or plagiarist's page, you are required to file a DMCA notice.

SUBSCRIBE Adsense has its own DMCA policy and follows it very strictly. Though results can be obtained through that means, few bloggers actually use it. Not only is the process unnecessarily complicated and time consuming, but a great deal of confusion is being spread about the nature of their policy. However, the cause of the misunderstandings are very easy spot. If you follow Google's abuse process, the confusion is very apparent as Google itself says never mentions its DMCA process when filing a complaint. Instead, it intentionally allows visitors to finish the entire process, certain the matter is in good hands, before letting them know the truth hours or days later. It isn't that these bloggers didn't do their research, just that they were misled by a company who's motto is supposed to be "Don't Be Evil". Adsense Abuse 101 In theory, reporting Adsense violations is as simple as a few clicks of the mouse. When you see a site breaking any of Adsene's rules, you are supposed to first click their "Ads By Google" link at the top or bottom of one of the ad blocks. You are then taken to a page that tries and sells you space on the site or get you to sign your own site up. Why To NOT Write Your Own License However, at the bottom there is a link reads "Send Google your thoughts on the site or the ads you just saw". If you click that link, a form appears below asking you what you thought of the ads. Below that is a link to report a violation. Click that link and a subform appears asking you to choice between a violation with the ads or the site itself. If you choose the Web site, you get a question with the options below: P O P U L A R TAGS
apple bittorrent Blogger Blogspot

Subscribe Via Email:
Submit

F R E E PLAGIARISM HELP Peformancing Legal Issues Forum

O T H E R WRITINGS Blog Herald BloggingTips European Journalism Centre

R E C E N T POSTS

3 Count: Zero the Hero The Copyright Reforms You Want 3 Count: Sony's Song The Future of the Copyright Office

Content-Theft Copyright Copyright Infringement CopyrightLaw Copyright-Office Creative-Commons
DMCA The third option reads "The site is hosting/distributing my copyrighted content" (emphasis in y original) and seems to be perfect for reporting scrapers and spammers. If you hit submit from there, you get a thank you page and a promise to look into the matter.
DRM facebook fair-use Flickr Google Hosting images licensing

MPAA

obama Orphan

Works Photography piracy plagiarim plagiarism-detection

Exh. C, Page 1
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/11/16/googles-shell-games/[5/29/2009 2:26:48 PM]

Google's Shell Games | PlagiarismToday

Plagiarism
Then nothing happens. If you provided your email address, which is entirely optional in the form, you get an email some time later telling you that Google can not process your complaint without a DMCA notice. It then links to the Adsense DMCA policy (found above) and offers little else. In the meantime you've lost hours, possibly days worth of time waiting for a response from Google and now have to start all over again. Frustrating, yes, but entirely avoidable.
Blog Network:

Podcast RIAA RSS RSS scraping Scraping
search Search-Engines Spam Spam-Blogs Splogging Splogs sweden takedown The-Pirate-

Bay USCO viacom Wordpress YouTube

C R E A T I V E COMMONS

A Double Standard Even if we discard the facts that Adsense is not protected under the DMCA and that Google's Google's DMCA policy is likely illegal in and of itself, there are several problems with this method of likely handling things. The biggest is that Google knows that they can not and will not act on such complaints without a proper DMCA notice. They wrote the policy and they stand by it, for better or worse. Yet they keep that option available, even though it only leads to confusion. Of course, the presence of that option would not be so bad if Google would actually notify submitters of the requirement to file the DMCA before they left the page. Strangely, Google actually does exactly this one of their other sites, YouTube. If you use the "Flag" feature at YouTube to report a video for copyright infringement.

Name: Plagiarism Today Topics: plagiarism , content theft, copyright
Join my network
Blog Networks

You are then given an error message directly you to their help center, which provides instructions for properly reporting the clip.

It is not a perfect system, but it prevents Webmasters from wasting days waiting for a response when one simply isn't coming.
Exh. C, Page 2
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/11/16/googles-shell-games/[5/29/2009 2:26:48 PM]

Google's Shell Games | PlagiarismToday

Bad Behavior Questions about why Google does this is entirely up for debate. The most obvious reason, however, is that Google has much less motivation to be cooperative with Adsense than YouTube. Adsense is Google's main money maker, is not technically protected under the DMCA and is not the subject of a billion dollar lawsuit. But no matter what the reason is, this is just another artificial hurdle to Google's already obstructionist DMCA policy. Google already mandates you send a physical signature, though the law clearly states that it is not necessary, refuses to accept email notices and often takes weeks to respond to a perfectly legitimate notice filed using their own policy. Google could probably fix this problem within the space of a few hours but, for whatever reason, it has not been a priority for them. Instead, there are countless confused bloggers who believe that Google simply doesn't respond to complaints about scraping doesn't care. The result is not only a damaged reputation for Google, but that thousands of spam blogs continue to thrive because content owners were thwarted in reporting the problem. They either never got the email requesting the DMCA notice, likely because they didn't fill out their email as it was optional, or had simply moved on in the days that had passed. The side effect of that is, of course, that Google gets to keep making money on the spam blogs. Considering they provide the hosting, promotion and revenue stream with their Blogspot, search and Adsense products respectively, Google seems to be a spammer's best friend. Sadly, this "do the absolute minimum" policy when dealing with scraping seems to be a mere extension of that. Even worse, it doesn't seem to be getting any better in the near future. Conclusions Google is a company like any other, with responsibilities to share holders and employees. The bottom line for a corporation is, quite simply, the bottom line. Money doesn't have an ethical or political stance and companies know that. We should not expect companies like Google go act quickly on something that is not in their best interest. Instead, we should make it in their best interest to act by voting with our dollars. Doing anything else will have no effect. The quicker we realize that, the quicker we can start to see some real change from Google in these and other areas. Even though no company is perfect, a company should at least attempt to live up to is motto. Otherwise, it should expect its customers to demand better and then seek it out elsewhere. ShareThis

Protect Your Work. Subscribe to Plagiarism Today via Email or RSS.

Tags: Adsense, Content-Theft, Copyright-Infringement, DMCA, Google, Plagiarism, Scraping, Spam -Blogs , Splogging, Splogs, viacom, YouTube
Exh. C, Page 3
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/11/16/googles-shell-games/[5/29/2009 2:26:48 PM]

Google's Shell Games | PlagiarismToday

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies. Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

A D D NEW COMMENT You are commenting as a Guest. You may select one to log into:

Type your comment here.

Guest Name

Register with DISQUS Why?

Email

Website (optional)

Post Comment

Use 9

Media

COMMENTS Sort by Popular now Popular now Community Page Comments feed

Maria 1 year ago I agree entirely with your assessment of the situation at Google regarding sploggers. As you know, it bothers me to no end that I have to spend many frustrating hours to get Google to act on any of the copyright infringement caused by someone splogging my content. I'm almost ashamed to say that Google and it's partners, the sploggers, have won this round. I simply don't have the time or the energy to stay on top of this. 90% of the slog-built sites out there are clearly recognizable as splogs due to their automated gathering of content. Google should simply put a "three strikes and you're out" policy in place -- three complaints about a site in a rolling 30-day period should be enough to get the AdSense accounts revoked. This should be simple enough to automate, with a human doing the final check before clicking the revoke button. Google is doing the Internet community a disservice by taking this stance. It's enabling -- no, encouraging -- splogging activities. And there's no value to a splog site.
Reply More Like Report
E

xh. C, Page 4
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/11/16/googles-shell-games/[5/29/2009 2:26:48 PM]

Google's DMCA Problem | PlagiarismToday

Home

$ERXW

Consulting

DMCA Contacts

Stock Letters

6WRS ,QWHUQHW 3ODJLDULVP

Press

Contact

Google's DMCA Problem
By Jonathan Bailey · Mar 10th, 2009 · Category: Articles, DMCA, Legal Issues

DISCLAIMER I am not a lawyer. I am just a legallyminded Webmaster/Writer frustrated with the plague of plagiarism online and doing something about it.

When it comes to the DMCA, it seems that Google has been nothing but a headache. In the past four years of this site, I have lamented Google's lack of email contact information , developed a hack to get around that , I have faxed a 17-page DMCA notice to their Adsense department (which is separate from Blogger), accused Google of intentionally misleading content creators on how to file a notice with Adsense and consistently given Google consistently low scores for its handling of the DMCA. However, it appears that Google's poor handling of the DMCA does not stop with the Google's frustrations of rights holders. A series of articles, first in the LA Weekly last month and last week on Ars Technica, have looked at Google's handling of DMCA takedowns from the perspective of those that are the subject of them, in these cases, music bloggers that use their Blogspot service.

SUBSCRIBE Subscribe Via Email:
Submit

F R E E PLAGIARISM HELP Peformancing Legal Issues Forum

O T H E R WRITINGS The criticism is that, once a notice has been filed, Google does not always seem to notify the blogger it has pulled the content from and, when the blogger becomes aware, doesn't provide a copy of the takedown notice. This, in turn, makes filing a counter-notice (to have the material put back) almost impossible. It seems that, when it comes to the DMCA, Google has a resoundingly negative review from both sides. This is something that Google needs to address as it strives to become not only the largest search engine, but one of the largest hosts. With so many new services expanding Google's function as a host of content, not merely an index, these issues can not be ignored. But fixing these issues is not going to be easy for Google and it is going to require that they completely rethink their DMCA strategy, something they have been unwilling to do up until now. R E C E N T POSTS Why To NOT Write Your Own License 3 Count: Zero the Hero The Copyright Reforms You Want 3 Count: Sony's Song The Future of the Copyright Office Blog Herald BloggingTips European Journalism Centre

Bad All Around
The problem with Google's DMCA regime starts when one seeks to file a notice. If you visit their Blogger DMCA page, you see quickly that Google does not provide an email address for submitting a DMCA notice. The reason is that they require, at least from most notices, that the filer provide a handwritten signature, thus causing them to limit their contact methods to fax and snail mail. However, this handwritten signature requirement is something of a perversion of the law. When asked in the past, Google has said that it is because the DMCA, in Section 512(c), requires "A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
apple bittorrent Blogger Blogspot

P O P U L A R TAGS

Content-Theft Copyright Copyright Infringement CopyrightLaw Copyright-Office Creative-Commons
DMCA
DRM facebook fair-use Flickr Google Hosting images licensing

MPAA

obama Orphan

Works Photography piracy plagiarim plagiarism-detection

Exh. C, Page 5
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/03/10/googles-dmca-problem/[5/29/2009 11:44:13 AM]

Google's DMCA Problem | PlagiarismToday

exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." The problem is that the law clearly states that an "electronic signature" is adequate for a complete notice and the ESIGN act of 2000 defines an electronic signature as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." This means that something as simple as typing your name at the end of an email or indicating a signature with a "/s/" should be adequate for a DMCA notice, meaning that emailing a notice is not just possible, but easiest on everyone. The vast majority of Web hosts and search engines agree with this interpretation as do the attorneys I've spoken with, including many who dislike the notice and takedown system. However, once these hurdles have been overcome and a successful notice has been filed, it seems that Google has changed its policy of notifying bloggers and letting them remove their own content in a less-destructive way. Now, Google deletes the posts themselves, making them more like other hosts, and, in some cases, doesn't seem to be notifying the bloggers they are pulling from. But then comes the real problem for bloggers. Once the content has been removed, getting a copy of the notice is almost impossible. Google, reportedly, has been stonewalling bloggers that ask for copies of their notices. Google does have a long-standing relationship with Chilling Effects, a joint venture of several non profits and universities that is working to build a database of searchable database of cease and desist letters as well as DMCA notices, which it has promised to forward all of the DMCA notices it receives to for inclusion. But despite this promise, it is clear that the volunteer-staffed service has fallen well behind. Only five notices have been posted since the beginning of the year and none were posted in January or so far in March. The problem with this is that, without a copy of the notice, it is impossible for a person who has had works removed to file a counter-notice. Filing a counter-notice without being 100% certain that the original notice was filed in mistake opens one up to a wide range of legal problems that didn't exist with just a takedown. Thus, without a copy of the DMCA notice, there is no viable way to correct a false or erroneous takedown. It isn't possible to know who demanded the takedown and what the specific work involved was (could be the post, an image in it or a link). In short, Google has built a DMCA system that equally screws content creators and legitimate Google users. Likely, the only people benefiting from this system are spam bloggers, who have extra protection from having a DMCA notice filed against them and those that with to abuse the takedown process, as they can do so with little worry about being discovered.

Plagiarism
Podcast RIAA RSS RSS scraping Scraping
search Search-Engines Spam Spam-Blogs Splogging Splogs sweden takedown The-Pirate-

Bay USCO viacom Wordpress YouTube

C R E A T I V E COMMONS

Blog Network: Name: Plagiarism Today Topics: plagiarism , content theft, copyright
Join my network
Blog Networks

Fixing the Beast
It is clear that Google's DMCA system is hopelessly broken. Not only is the process for filing a Not notice unnecessarily difficult and legally dubious, but the way Google handles its own customers is worrisome and makes the system prone to abuse. The two problems, however, are almost certainly related. Google's demand of a handwritten Google's signature makes it difficult for rights holders to file a notice and virtually ensures that such notices will be in a non-text-friendly version. This increases the time it takes Google to process notices and makes it harder for Google to forward on the information that they get.
Exh. C, Page 6
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/03/10/googles-dmca-problem/[5/29/2009 11:44:13 AM]

Google's DMCA Problem | PlagiarismToday

The problem is that DMCA handling, like all abuse resolution, is overhead and smart companies are going to look for ways to trim such expenses, especially during down economic times. The fact that Google is cutting corners with its DMCA resolution process shouldn't be a shock to anyone. They are stripping down their process to the bare minimums of their interpretation of the law, but, if they changed their interpretation of the law to fit with other hosts, they might save money with their DMCA process. Though allowing plain text DMCA notices would likely lead to a rise in the number filed, it would also make it easier to handle the notices on Google's end. They could more freely copy, paste and use the information in the notice. This would be helpful both in locating the links that need to be pulled down and in forwarding the relevant information to those who have had their posts removed. That would mean faster resolution for copyright holders and better service for Blogspot users. With text-based notices, especially if Google provided a form-based system, much of the especially much process could be automated, including the notification of the user. Privacy could be respected (when necessary), users would have the information they need to file counter-notices when appropriate and Google would spend less time, and thus less money, on each notice. It seems like an easy win-win-win. However, Google has always refused to do this, at least for the general public. Either Google Google stands by its rather unusual interpretation of the DMCA or it is afraid of a perceived onslaught of notices that would result from easy filing and wants to fight email/form DMCA notices the best it can. Either way, it is creating a situation where everyone suffers. As long as Google continues the status quo, there will be no winners.

Conclusions
Google is and always has been something of a strange beast when it comes to copyright issues. Both the largest search engine and one of the largest blog hosts, they've always had an approach to the DMCA that is all their own. No one, quite literally, handles these disputes the same way. The sad truth is that, as large as Google is and as great as they are at many of the things they do, this is one area that they have consistently gotten things wrong. Companies only a tiny fraction of Google's size, such as Automattic with WordPress.com, have gotten these issues just about perfect without breaking the bank. The question isn't whether Google can fix these problems, but if it is willing to do so. Perhaps Perhaps now with their flawed DMCA system impacting their own users as negatively as other copyright holders, change may finally be possible. Of course, especially with Blogger, Google has promised that it's going to improve its system before, especially as it pertains to spam blogs. Sadly, none of that change has materialized as of yet. Hopefully 2009 can be the year it happens. ShareThis

Protect Your Work. Subscribe to Plagiarism Today via Email or RSS.
Exh. C, Page 7
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/03/10/googles-dmca-problem/[5/29/2009 11:44:13 AM]

Google's DMCA Problem | PlagiarismToday

Tags: Blogger, Blogspot, Content-Theft, copyright infirngement, DMCA, Google, Plagiarism

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies. Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

A D D NEW COMMENT You are commenting as a Guest. You may select one to log into:

Type your comment here.

Guest Name

Register with DISQUS Why?

Email

Website (optional)

Post Comment

Use 5

Media

COMMENTS Sort by Popular now Popular now Community Page Comments feed

Childlife 2 months ago Jonathan -- I just wanted to stop by and thank you for all of the effort and hard work you have put into building such a helpful and reliable resource for bloggers. I just had my first unfortunate run-in with a splog that had stolen ten of my posts in entirety. I was able to successfully resolve the situation using the resources, tools and forms you have here at your site. I'm a subscriber now, and in my humble opinion, Google would do well to hire you as a consultant and give you free rein. Thanks again for your most excellent advice here! ~Michelle
Reply More Like Report
E

xh. C, Page 8
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/03/10/googles-dmca-problem/[5/29/2009 11:44:13 AM]

Google's DMCA Problem | PlagiarismToday

Jonathan Bailey

2 months ago

You are very welcome, thank you for the compliments. I'm glad it worked out for you and definitely, if you get a chance, drop me an email to let me know the details. I'm always looking for experiences with hosts and sites so I can be aware of what people are experiencing. Thank you again for the comment!
Reply More
L Like

Report

David Kool 2 months ago I run the website constant-content.com, and I couldn't agree more! We consistently are on the look out for thieves who steal content from our writers. We do everything possible to prevent such activities, ie: anti- scraping technology, embedded messages in our html married to google alerts and truncated visible summaries, but it is still difficult to stop all thievery. In the few instances that content has been stolen, we have identified where it was posted and immediately filed DMCA violation paperwork. We we have followed up with email and phone calls and have heard nothing back. All of our paperwork was filled out correctly, but we have been left staring at a website that, with impunity, continues to use content by our writers. It is frustrating all around and undermines the rules and authority that google has mandated itself to enforce. It makes it seem as though their interest in taking on the responsibility for policing the search engine that they profit so handsomely from, is simply cosmetic. David Kool Product & Content Manager, Web Properties www.Constant- Content.com david.kool@constant- content.com
Reply More
Like

Report

jm 1 month ago Google is a nightmare to deal with regarding stolen photos of children on orkut.com as well.
Reply More
Like

Report

Jonathan Bailey

1 month ago

Can you please email me some of the details? I haven't dealt with Google over Orkut but would like to hear about your experiences.
Reply More ike Report
E

TRACKBACKS ( Trackback URL) CopyrightLaw (CopyrightLaw)
03/10/2009 06:23 PM

"Google's DMCA Problem" http://tinyurl.com/ajhebb

xh. C, Page 9
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/03/10/googles-dmca-problem/[5/29/2009 11:44:13 AM]

Exhibit D

0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: DATE:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ____________________________________________________________ PERFECT 10, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CV07-5156 AHM (SHX) ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________________________________

Videotape Deposition Upon Oral Examination of JUDY WESTON ____________________________________________________________ Taken at 14855 Northeast 36th Street, Building 115 Redmond, Washington

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Ronald L. Cook CCR, RMR, CRR

0033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conclusion. Q. A. "expeditious." Q. The removal or blocking of access is supposed BY MR. MAUSNER: Go ahead. "expeditious"? Q. BY MR. MAUSNER: Do you understand what that a removal or disabling of access to infringing material is not expeditious? MR. BRIDGES: Objection. Calls for a legal

opinion, vague and ambiguous, argumentative, lacks foundation. THE WITNESS: What do you mean by

"expeditious" means? MR. BRIDGES: Objection. Calls for a legal

I don't understand what you mean by

to be expeditious, and I'd like to know what your understanding is of what is -- what is the time period for the removal or blocking to be expeditious? MR. BRIDGES: Objection. Calls for a legal

conclusion, vague and -- vague and ambiguous, lacks foundation, competence. THE WITNESS: answer to that question. Q. Q. BY MR. MAUSNER: . Do you have a time frame in Yeah, I don't know the legal

which you believe that notices of infringement should be which

0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 processed and URLs removed or disabled? MR. BRIDGES: Objection. Calls for opinion

testimony, testimony, competence, lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous. ambiguous. THE THE WITNESS: satisfaction expectation. satisfaction Q. Q. A. A. Q. Q. BY MR. MAUSNER: t ? What is that? We -- we do have a customer

Approximately 72 hours. And that's for removal or dis -- disabling of