The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al

Filing 276

DECLARATION of Elizabeth Anne Figueira, Esq. in Opposition re: 167 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by The Music Force LLC, Cal IV Entertainment, LLC, Cherry Lane Music Publishing Company, Inc., The Football Association Premier League Limited, Robert Tur, National Music Publishers' Association, The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, Edward B. Marks Music Company, Freddy Bienstock Music Company, Alley Music Corporation, X-Ray Dog Music, Inc., Federation Francaise De Tennis, The Scottish Premier League Limited, The Music Force Media Group LLC, Sin-Drome Records, Ltd., Murbo Music Publishing, Inc., Stage Three Music (US), Inc., Bourne Co.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 189, # 2 Exhibit 190, # 3 Exhibit 191, # 4 Exhibit 192, # 5 Exhibit 193, # 6 Exhibit 194, # 7 Exhibit 195, # 8 Exhibit 196, # 9 Exhibit 197, # 10 Exhibit 198, # 11 Exhibit 199, # 12 Exhibit 200, # 13 Exhibit 201, # 14 Exhibit 202, # 15 Exhibit 203, # 16 Exhibit 204, # 17 Exhibit 205, # 18 Exhibit 206, # 19 Exhibit 207, # 20 Exhibit 208, # 21 Exhibit 209, # 22 Exhibit 210, # 23 Exhibit 211, # 24 Exhibit 212, # 25 Exhibit 213, # 26 Exhibit 214, # 27 Exhibit 215, # 28 Exhibit 216, # 29 Exhibit 217, # 30 Exhibit 218, # 31 Exhibit 219, # 32 Exhibit 220, # 33 Exhibit 221, # 34 Exhibit 222, # 35 Exhibit 223, # 36 Exhibit 224 Part 1, # 37 Exhibit 224 Part 2, # 38 Exhibit 225, # 39 Exhibit 226, # 40 Exhibit 227 Part 1, # 41 Exhibit 227 Part 2, # 42 Exhibit 227 Part 3, # 43 Exhibit 227 Part 4, # 44 Exhibit 228, # 45 Exhibit 229, # 46 Exhibit 230, # 47 Exhibit 231, # 48 Exhibit 232, # 49 Exhibit 233, # 50 Exhibit 234, # 51 Exhibit 235, # 52 Exhibit 236, # 53 Exhibit 237, # 54 Exhibit 238, # 55 Exhibit 239, # 56 Exhibit 240, # 57 Exhibit 241, # 58 Exhibit 242, # 59 Exhibit 243, # 60 Exhibit 244, # 61 Exhibit 245, # 62 Exhibit 246, # 63 Exhibit 247, # 64 Exhibit 248, # 65 Exhibit 249, # 66 Exhibit 250, # 67 Exhibit 251, # 68 Exhibit 252, # 69 Exhibit 253, # 70 Exhibit 254, # 71 Exhibit 255, # 72 Exhibit 256, # 73 Exhibit 257, # 74 Exhibit 258, # 75 Exhibit 259, # 76 Exhibit 260, # 77 Exhibit 261, # 78 Exhibit 262, # 79 Exhibit 263, # 80 Exhibit 264, # 81 Exhibit 265, # 82 Exhibit 266, # 83 Exhibit 267, # 84 Exhibit 268, # 85 Exhibit 269, # 86 Exhibit 270, # 87 Exhibit 271, # 88 Exhibit 272 Part 1, # 89 Exhibit 272-2, # 90 Exhibit 272 Part 3, # 91 Exhibit 272 Part 4, # 92 Exhibit 272 Part 5, # 93 Exhibit 272 Part 6, # 94 Exhibit 272 Part 7, # 95 Exhibit 272 Part 8, # 96 Exhibit 272 Part 9, # 97 Exhibit 272 Part 10, # 98 Exhibit 272 Part 11, # 99 Exhibit 272 Part 12, # 100 Exhibit 272 Part 13, # 101 Exhibit 272 Part 14, # 102 Exhibit 272 Part 15, # 103 Exhibit 272 Part 16, # 104 Exhibit 272 Part 17, # 105 Exhibit 272 Part 18, # 106 Exhibit 272 Part 19, # 107 Exhibit 273, # 108 Exhibit 274, # 109 Exhibit 275, # 110 Exhibit 276, # 111 Exhibit 277, # 112 Exhibit 278, # 113 Exhibit 279, # 114 Exhibit 280, # 115 Exhibit 281, # 116 Exhibit 282, # 117 Exhibit 283, # 118 Exhibit 284, # 119 Exhibit 285, # 120 Exhibit 286, # 121 Exhibit 287, # 122 Exhibit 288, # 123 Exhibit 289, # 124 Exhibit 290, # 125 Exhibit 291, # 126 Exhibit 292, # 127 Exhibit 293, # 128 Exhibit 294, # 129 Exhibit 295, # 130 Exhibit 296, # 131 Exhibit 297, # 132 Exhibit 298, # 133 Exhibit 299, # 134 Exhibit 300, # 135 Exhibit 301, # 136 Exhibit 302, # 137 Exhibit 303, # 138 Exhibit 304, # 139 Exhibit 305, # 140 Exhibit 306, # 141 Exhibit 307, # 142 Exhibit 308, # 143 Exhibit 309, # 144 Exhibit 310, # 145 Exhibit 311, # 146 Exhibit 312, # 147 Exhibit 313, # 148 Exhibit 314, # 149 Exhibit 315, # 150 Exhibit 316, # 151 Exhibit 317, # 152 Exhibit 318, # 153 Exhibit 319, # 154 Exhibit 320, # 155 Exhibit 321, # 156 Exhibit 322, # 157 Exhibit 323, # 158 Exhibit 324, # 159 Exhibit 325, # 160 Exhibit 326, # 161 Exhibit 327, # 162 Exhibit 328, # 163 Exhibit 329, # 164 Exhibit 330, # 165 Exhibit 331, # 166 Exhibit 332, # 167 Exhibit 333 Part 1, # 168 Exhibit 333 Part 2, # 169 Exhibit 334, # 170 Exhibit 335, # 171 Exhibit 336, # 172 Exhibit 337, # 173 Exhibit 338)(Figueira, Elizabeth)

91112009

omon
DISTRICT

NF IC

ae

HIGHLY CONflDENTIa OUTSIDE COUNSELS EYES ONLY
--

UNITED
FOR THE

STATES

COURT
OF

SOUTHERN

DISTRICT

NEW

YORK
FigueirDecI.Thb 297
51

VIACOM

INTEATIONAL
COUNTRY

INC.

COMEDY

PARTNERS
TELEVISION PICTURES

MUSIC.

INC.

PARAMOUNT and BLACK

CORPORATION

ENTERTAINMENT

TELEVISION

LLC

Plaintiffs
NO.

vs.

07-CV-2203

YOUTUBE
and

INC.

YOUTUBE

LLC

GOOGLE

INC.
Defendants.

10

11 THE
12

FOOTBALL

ASSOCIATION BOURNE

PREMIER
et all

LEAGUE
on

LIMITED
of

CO.
and

al.

behalf

themselves

13

others

similarly situated

14 vs. 15

Plaintiffs
NO.

07-CV-3582

YOUTUBE
16

INC. INC.

YOUTUBE

LLC

and

GOOGLE

17

Defendants.

18

VIDEOTAPED
19

DEPOSITION PALO ALTO

OF

MICHAEL

SOLOMON

CALIFORNIA
2009

TUESDAY
20 JOB 21
22 23 24 25

SEPTEMBER

NO.

17576

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
blocking multiple
the same user from

N.

uploading

the

same

video

times
MR.

WILLEN WITNESS
the

Objection
At some

to

the

form. have

THE filter same to

point
from the

wanted
the

prevent account
times.

same

user

uploading
same

user

from

uploading

video

multiple

MR.

DESANCTIS marking
Sorry.
as

Oh.

Ill show
Exhibit

you
12

document Solomon

10

that

were
13.

Solomon

11

Exhibit

12

Document
for
MR.

marked

Solomon

Exhibit

13

13

identification. DESANCTIS
just Okay. you
--

14

15

Ive you
Bates chain. Mr.
No.

handed

or

have

handed

to

16

Solomon

three-page

document 901.
Chen line

beginning

with

17

G000012826899
The

through
Steve The

Its
to
is

an

email

18

topmost

is

from

Yu

Pan
and

19

dated
as

December

1st
if

2005.

re

KWONE
there are

20

youll

see

you

glance

through
this

it

21

cmails

from

you

throughout

chain.

22

Okay. Okay. about
So

23

this
is

is

this

email
user

chain

is

24

situation K-W-O-N-E

it

not
the

where
same

named hundreds
of

25

Kwone

uploaded

video

135

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON times
up from
It

N.

begins
if

in you
is

the

middle
to

of

page
it

two

and

goes

there

want

give

quick
user

read.

Yes
uploading
the

this same

definitely

about times.

video
on

multiple
at

Okay.

Then

the

bottom

of

the be

first

page
the

on

December video
to

2005
reject some

you

wrote
and

Ill

testing
on

duplicate
tool
Is

today
of

Ill work

pruning
10

mulch

these

videos.
tool the tool to you

that

duplicate

video
to

reject that
it

11

that

you

had the

just

testified think
for you

you

created
filter

12

address

called

13

created
the same

filter

addressing

multiple

uploads

by

14

user
MR.

15

WILLEN

Objection

to

the

form

of

that

16

question. THE

17

WITNESS
the

It

doesnt

make

any

specific

18

mention

of

implementation
same

but

think
yeah.

its

19

its solving
MR.

the

problem
Okay. user

so

20

DESANCTIS clearly hundreds
this of

21

And same video
MR.

wanted

to

upload

the

22

times

correct
calls for

23

WILLEN

Objection

24

speculation.
MR.

25

DESANCTIS

Well

just

the

email

is

136

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
very
clear. THE wants.
MR.

N.

WITNESS

dont

know

what

the

user

WILLEN
DESANCTIS
other.

What

are

you

asking
not

him
be

then

MR.

Okay.

Lets

talking

over

each
MR.

WILLEN
DESANCTIS
it

Sorry.
Q.

MR.

In

--

on

the

second

page

10

at

the

bottom
Jawed
Is

says
an of

Jawed

wrote.
at

Whos

Jawed

11

was one

engineer
the

YouTube. founders of

12

he

initial

YouTube

13

Yes. Jawed

14

wrote
of

Why

are

you

uploading
then

the

same

15

video

hundreds

times
And
right you to

Kwone have do

writes
to

above do

16

that
what
You

Who

are have

you
the but

the

right

17

what
blame

want

right

18

can

ignore
And then

cant
writes

me.
idiot

19

Jawed

Apparently this
the same

20

doesnt
hundreds

even of
So

know

why

hes

uploading

video

21

times.

22

Im

just have

trying
the

to

figure
to

out
what
filter

when

the that

23

user

writes
true

right

do

want
that

24

wasnt

after

you

designed
He

the

blocked
have

25

duplicate

videos

correct

actually

didnt

137

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
the the have in right time had this the he

N.

may have
was do

had

the

right but

to

do

that

at

email
right to

written
that

user had

would
the

not

after

you

filter

place
MR.

correct WILLEN WITNESS
what
the

Objection
Can you of

to

the

form.

THE

specify
the

mean

its
is

unclear
here
10

of

meaning

word

right

in

this
MR.

particular DESANCTIS

context. Sure.

Thats

fair

and

11

suppose by

we

cant

divine word

what

particular

user

meant

12

particular
Let me

13

ask or

it

this
as

way
you

Do

you

recall

the

14

blocking been
put

tool
in

filter

called

it

ever

having

15

place

16

Yes. Okay. was put
in Do

17

you

recall

approximately

when

it

18

place
do not.

19

No

not

from

memory.

20

And The file files and

how

did

that

filter

work
of the

21

filter

computes
it

hash the

uploaded
of other

22

compares the

against
has

hash

values

23

that

user

uploaded.

24

Okay.

And
of

if

it

matches
if the

other

files what
if the hash

25

happens

First

all

hashes

138

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
of one file

N.

matches

the about

hash the

of two

another

file

what

does

that
It

indicate
means the be

files
reasonable
not 100 chance

that

theres
but

that There

theyre
could

same

its

percent.

collisions.
So

Okay. filter hash
10

what
there

happened
are two

--

how

does

your the same

respond

if

files

with

uploaded

by the

same

user
so

Its been
but some of the

while

can

say

generally
may
not

11

specific

actions

you

know

12

recall.

13

Thats
But the

fine.

14

general
files
as

the
as

general

idea

is

to

15

mark

subsequent
Okay.

duplicate
files sort

rejection.
as

16

And

are

subsequent they

marked
of

17

duplicate viewable

rejection
on the
It

before

are

publicly

18

website
goes

19

Yes. state to the Okay. this filter
is

directly
state.

from

the

uploaded

20

rejected And
the

21

reason
is

its rejected
not

when
was

22

being

used
or

because deleted
are

it

23

previously
like user

rejected

previously

or

anything
the same

24

that
has

its simply because
already uploaded
the

there

25

identical

video

139

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
MR.

N.

WILLEN
DESANCTIS

Objection

to

form.

MR.

Im

just

trying to

understand. THE the the filter

WITNESS
is

The

filter the same

the user

purpose
from

of

to

prevent

uploading

identical
MR.

video

again. Okay.

DESANCTIS

THE
10

WITNESS
and

And
then if any

so

once

hes

uploaded
file can

it
be

hash

is

computed
If the

subsequent
hash

11

uploaded.

the

matches
file

then from

that

12

subsequent
that

file the

and

subsequent
that

that
as

13

matches
as

hash

within

user

its marked

14

reject
MR.

yeah. Okay. in

15

DESANCTIS
that still know. the

16

Is

place

today

that

filter

17

do Okay. was
it

not

18

When

filter

was

in place

well

19

in place Yes. Okay.

ever

20

21

When

it

was

in of

place
the same

if

user

wanted they

22

to

upload

multiple

copies

file

could

23

have Its vague
what
do you
as

24

your

mean

in

terms

of

25

mean by

user

140

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON Well
file and then times if the if an

N.

uploader wants
to

has

uploaded

uploader
he

upload
will to

it
make see
it

say
it

hundred

because
more the

thinks will do

that be

more was

popular
there

where way
of for

people
user to to

able

it
the

that

or was

purpose

your

filter

prevent

that
but the

Maybe
of
10

Im
was

restating
to

myself
the

purpose
name than on once.

the

filter from

prevent

same files he

user more

Youlube
So

uploading

identical
user

11

given
then
if

particular

name

can

upload by the

file
same

12

and user
as

subsequent
to once

file

uploaded

13

happened
reject

match
the

the

same was

hash
in
as

we

would

mark

it

14

filter

place. reject
as

15

Okay. just

And
be

its marked
clear
it

Im

16

trying to
even be
MR.

here was the

its marked
users
intent

17

reject
file to

though

for

the

18

posted WILLEN Objection
calls for

19

20

speculation.
THE of the user.
MR.

21

WITNESS

have

no

idea

about

the

intent

22

23

DESANCTIS video

Q.

Well
that
it

presumably
can be

user

24

wouldnt correct

upload

so

rejected

25

141

9/1/2009

Solomon

Michael

SOLOMON
MR.

N.

WILLEN

Objection

calls

for

speculation.
THE

WITNESS
error. the

Again
It

you

know

it

could

simply be

user

dont
reason
see. for

you

know
so is.

dont

know
MR.

what

users

doing

DESANCTIS regardless
was or of

So

whether
the

the

user

what

the the

users
10

reason was

what

users desire
the same to the

was

filter of

there

simply to
files

block

subsequent
user form

upload

11

identical
MR.

video

by the

account
of the

12

WILLEN

Objection

13

question. THE again. The

14

WITNESS
the and

think purpose
to of

Ill restate
the filter
is

just for

15

16

given
that

username match
MR.

prevent

subsequent

uploads

17

an

existing

upload. Okay. page of
it

18

DESANCTIS
on about you the first

19

And
No.

the

exhibit

Exhibit

20

13

in

the see

middle

says

Mike

Solomon

21

wrote

do

that

22

Yes.
It

23

says
will site

One
solve more

of
is

the

things

that signal

rejecting
to noise and

24

duplicates making
the

reducing

25

fun.

142