Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03926/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03926-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have

expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated

by the undersigned.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VEOH NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C06-03926 HRL

ORDER ON PARTIES’ CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[Re: Docket Nos. 77 and 78]

This is a civil action for alleged copyright infringement. Presently before this court are

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. moves for summary

judgment on liability. Defendant Veoh Networks, Inc. seeks judgment that it qualifies for “safe

harbor” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512. Following

the motion hearing, the parties were permitted to, and did, file supplemental briefs. Upon

consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this

court now issues its order, focusing first (for reasons to be explained) on defendant’s safe

harbor defense.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all record citations are to the parties’ submissions

filed in connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2

I. BACKGROUND

For purposes of resolving the instant motion, and except as otherwise indicated, the

following facts are not materially disputed.2

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. (“Io”), doing business as Titan Media, produces, markets and

distributes a variety of adult entertainment products, including audiovisual works. It holds and

owns a number of registered copyrights for its films.

Defendant Veoh Networks, Inc. (“Veoh”) is a self-described “Internet Television

Network,” which provides software and a website (veoh.com) that enables the sharing of userprovided video content over the Internet – from job interviews, to family gatherings, to films by

aspiring filmmakers. Since its website launch in February 2006, users have uploaded and

shared hundreds of thousands of videos on Veoh. Veoh says that it has received notices of

alleged copyright infringement with respect to less than seven percent of those videos. 

(Dunning Decl. in Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 6).

In addition to user-submitted content, users may also access videos from Veoh’s content

partners, including Turner, CBS, Us Magazine, Road and Track Magazine, Car and Driver

Magazine, and United Talent Agency. (See Scherb Decl. ¶2, Ex. A (Shapiro Depo. at 33:17-19,

37:11-16)). Veoh itself creates and uploads promotional videos to its system. And, in some

instances, Veoh’s content partners have given video files to Veoh, in which case Veoh’s

employees upload those files on their behalf. (Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶¶ 2, 4, Ex.

A (Papa Depo. at 29:19-30:11); Ex. F (Shapiro Depo. at 36:19-23)). There is no allegation that

Veoh employees have submitted and uploaded infringing content to veoh.com; and, the only

content in question here is material that was submitted to Veoh by its users.

Once video files are uploaded to Veoh’s system, Veoh’s employees can and do select

videos to be featured on the “Featured Videos” portion of Veoh’s website. (See Sperlein Decl.

ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at 194:17-21)).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Veoh now offers advertising opportunities and participates in certain Google-sponsored

ad programs. (See Papa Decl., ¶ 3; see also Scherb Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. C (Papa Depo. (Vol. 1) at

118:17-19)). Additionally, Veoh has implemented a “premium content” program in which users

who upload content may choose to charge for viewing the content, and Veoh receives a portion

of the proceeds. (See Papa Decl., ¶ 4). However, during the time period encompassed by the

complaint, Veoh did not charge users for viewing videos, or impose any membership or

subscription fee. Also, there was no advertising on Veoh. (See Papa Decl., ¶ 2).

B. Alleged Infringement

Between June 1, 2006 and June 22, 2006, Io says it discovered that clips from ten of its

copyrighted films had been uploaded and viewed on veoh.com without its authorization. 

Several of the allegedly infringing video files are less than one minute long, and some were less

than six seconds in length. (See Scherb Decl. ISO Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 2, Ex. D

(Plaintiff’s responses to RFA Nos. 65-78)). A couple of files were longer than 20 minutes; and,

at oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel clarified that, in some instances, there was a series of sixsecond clips for a particular work (or, on average, about 20 minutes of clips per movie). He

further represented that the longest clip is about 40 minutes long. However, none of the clips

contained copyright notices, save for one work that displayed the Titan Media trademark

several minutes into the clip. (Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶15, Ex. F at p. 2).

When it discovered the presence of the allegedly infringing files, Io did not tell Veoh

that it believed its copyrights were being violated. Veoh’s first notice of the claimed

infringement was Io’s filing of the instant lawsuit on June 23, 2006. Coincidentally, Veoh had

already independently decided that it would no longer permit adult content on veoh.com. By

the time this suit was filed, access to all adult content on Veoh’s website – including any

content allegedly infringing Io’s copyrights – had been terminated.

C. Veoh’s Policies

Veoh has established Terms of Use and Acceptable Use policies, which are posted on its

website. Before users can upload video content to veoh.com, they must register with Veoh and

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 3 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

agree to abide by those policies. During the relevant period of time encompassed by the

complaint, Veoh’s Terms of Use required users to agree that:

any User Material that you make available to the Veoh Service may be made

freely available by Veoh through the Veoh Service, including without limitation

for download by other users, and that this permission is made and granted in

consideration of your use of the Veoh Service and is nonexclusive, perpetual,

royalty-free, irrevocable and transferable.

(Papa Decl. ¶5, Ex. A). The Terms of Use further advised:

Veoh shall have no obligation to monitor any User Material. However, Veoh

and its agents shall have and do reserve the right to monitor any User Material

from time to time for any lawful purpose. Veoh may, without notice to you,

remove or block content of any User Material from the Veoh Service, including

disabling access to such User material that you have downloaded through the

Veoh Service. Veoh reserves the right to terminate your use of the Veoh Service

if we determine that you have violated these Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy.

Veoh requires all users of the Veoh Service to comply with copyright and

other intellectual property laws. Accordingly, you may not publish or make

available any User Material that constitutes an infringement of third party

intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law, or

that otherwise violates the Acceptable Use Policy. You represent and warrant

that you have all rights necessary to publish and distribute any User Material

made available by you through the Veoh Service and that such User Material

conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy. You agree to indemnify and hold

Veoh harmless from and against any liability, claims, losses, demands or

damages arising out of or relating to your violation of these Terms or the

Acceptable Use Policy.

As explained above, Veoh does not permit copyright infringing activities on the

Veoh Service and reserves the right to terminate access to the Veoh Service, and

remove all User Materials posted, by any persons who are found to be repeat

infringers (i.e., persons found to have uploaded copyright infringing User

Material on more than two occasions).

(Papa Decl. ¶5, Ex. A).

Similarly, Veoh’s Acceptable Use Policy advised users that:

Veoh respects the rights of copyright owners to control commercial

uses of their material, and expects our users to do the same. You are

responsible for complying with all federal and state laws applicable to the

content available through the Veoh Services, including copyright laws.

Accordingly, Veoh reserves the right to terminate the service account of

anyone who it learns is using the Veoh Services in violation of copyright

law.

(Papa Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. G).

Veoh also reminds users of its policies during the upload process. When a user now

begins to upload a video, the system displays a message stating, “Do not upload copyrighted,

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 4 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

pornographic, obscene, violent, or any other videos that violate Veoh Publisher Terms and

Conditions.” (See Papa Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. I). Veoh says that it gave a substantially similar warning

(presumably without the reference to pornographic material) to users during the relevant period

encompassed by the complaint. (Id.).

Veoh has a designated Copyright Agent to receive notification of claimed violations and

provides information about how and where to send notices of claimed infringement. (See Papa

Decl., Exs. A, C, D, F and G). When Veoh receives notice that a user has uploaded infringing

content after a first warning, then the user’s account is terminated, all content provided by that

user is disabled (unless the content was also published by another non-terminated user and is

not the subject of a DMCA notice), and the user’s email address is blocked so that a new

account cannot be opened with that same address. (See Dunning Decl. ¶¶ 10-12; Scherb Decl. ¶

2, Ex. C (Papa Depo., Vol.1, 98:3-7)). Veoh also has the ability to disable access to such

material on its users’ hard drives (assuming their computers are still connected to the Internet). 

Additionally, Veoh has adopted means for generating a digital “fingerprint” for each video file,

which enables Veoh to terminate access to any other identical files and prevent additional

identical files from ever being uploaded by any user. (Dunning Decl. ¶ 13).

D. Uploading Video Content on Veoh.com

1. User-Submitted Videos

As noted above, users must register with Veoh before they can upload video content to

the website. In the registration process, users are required to provide a user name, an email

address and a password. (See Dunning Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A). They may, but are not required to,

give their actual names. (See Scherb Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B (Dunning Depo., 72:2-13)).

When users upload a video file to Veoh’s system, they are asked to (a) provide a title

and description; (b) enter key words or “tags”; (c) select up to four categories which best

describe the video; and (d) select a content rating. (See Dunning Decl. ¶5, Exs. B and C; Ruoff

Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶¶ 24-25, Ex. G). Users then select the video file (from wherever it

resides on their computers) and upload it to the Veoh system. (See Scherb Decl., ¶2, Ex,. B

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 5 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3 Incompatible files are, in effect, rejected. Such files are marked incompatible

by Veoh’s system and maintained for only a limited time. (Sperlein Decl., ISO Plaintiff’s

MSJ, ¶ 2, Ex. A (Papa Depo. at 12:10-24, 124:3-13)).

4 Neither side explained precisely what a Flash file is, but this court

understands it to be the name of a file format used to transmit videos over the Internet. See

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_format.

5 Defendant refers to the still-image screen captures as thumbnails. Plaintiff

disputes whether all of the still images are true thumbnails, or reduced-size screenshots. This

court does not find the discrepancy to be material. For present purposes, it will simply refer

to these images as still images or screencaps.

6

(Dunning Depo. at 132:7-11); Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at

40:4-11)).

When the Veoh system receives a video submission, its computers first confirm that the

submitted file is, in fact, a video file with a compatible “codec” (or compression format). 

(Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 2, Ex. A (Papa Depo. at 12:10-17:21)).3 If the

submission is a compatible video file, the Veoh system automatically extracts certain metadata

from it (e.g., file format and length), assigns a unique video identification number to it, indexes

the user-entered information and stores the information in a database on Veoh’s servers. (See

Scherb Decl., ¶2, Ex. B (Dunning Depo. at 132:7-133:3; Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶

3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at 20:14-21:10)). Users can then conduct searches (e.g., by title,

description, genre, etc.) of the database in order to find videos they wish to view. (Sperlein

Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at 22:18-23:18; 28:1-29:1)). The

database also automatically indexes video files into a series of lists, such as “Most Recent;”

“Top Rated,” “Most Popular,” “Most Discussed” and “Top Favorite.” (Sperlein Decl. ISO

Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 2, Ex. A (Papa Depo. 39:10-40:9); Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 26).

2. “Flash” Files4 and Screencaps5

As part of the uploading process, when Veoh receives a video file from a user, its

system also automatically (a) converts each user-submitted video into Flash format; and (b)

extracts several still images from each file.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 6 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

a. Flash Files

Users submit video files in a variety of formats. A “bit-for-bit” equivalent of the usersubmitted video resides on Veoh’s servers indefinitely in its original format. (Sperlein Decl.

ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at 42:1-11)). If users download Veoh’s “Veoh

Client” software, then they may download a copy of the video file in its original format to their

computer hard drive. (Id. at 40:1-21).

Veoh says that the vast majority of Internet users now have software that can play

videos in “Flash” format. So, as part of the uploading process, when the Veoh system receives

a user-submitted video, its computers use third-party software to automatically convert each

user-submitted video into Flash format. (See Scherb Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. C (Papa Depo., Vol. 1 at

124:3-125:12); Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶3, Ex. E (Dunning Depo. at 47:3-9)). Veoh

selects certain parameters (e.g., frame rate, bit rate and frame size) which it says are default

values within a range of parameters set by the third party software used in the process. (Scherb

Decl. ¶2, Ex. E (Veoh’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory No. 6); Dunning Decl. in

Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶¶ 3-4). The creation of the Flash files is entirely automated.

Before October 2006, and during the period of time encompassed by the complaint,

videos that were shorter than ten minutes in length would be converted into Flash format. For

videos longer than ten minutes, the Veoh system would create a three-minute Flash preview

clip. (Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶2, Ex. A (Papa Depo. at 129:10-130:18)). Since

October 2006, Veoh’s system has converted all video files to Flash format without limitation as

to length. (Id.).

b. Screencaps

During the upload process, Veoh’s system also automatically extracts several still

images from each file – i.e., 16 full resolution screen captures, or “screencaps,” in the same

resolution as the incoming video and 16 lower resolution screencaps. (See Scherb Decl. ¶2, Ex.

B (Dunning Depo. at 133:6-14), Ex. D (Papa Depo. at 155:22-24, 159:25-161:18; 166:8-17)). 

Screencaps in the original video resolution reside on the Veoh system but are not available for

users to view or access. (See id., Ex. D (Papa Depo. at 160:21-161:18).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 7 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Of the 16 lower-resolution images, one is used to represent the video in a search result. 

(Scherb Decl., ¶2, Ex. D (Papa Depo. at 166:8-17); Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶3, Ex. E

(Dunning Depo. at 133:4-14)). Thus, when users search for videos on Veoh, the search results

are shown in a grid, with each result represented by a still image extracted from a video. 

(Dunning Decl. in Opp. Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 5; Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶ 26, Ex. H). 

When users click on a specific image on the search results page, they see a “Video Details

Page” containing the video and a link called “Video Screencaps.” (Dunning Decl. in Opp.

Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 5; see also Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶ 26, Ex. E). By clicking on the

“Video Screencaps” link, users can see the 16 lower-resolution screenshots from the video. 

(Dunning Decl. in Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 5; Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶13, Ex. D). 

Veoh says that the screencaps help users understand what a video likely contains before they

download it. However, it acknowledges that the value of the screencaps was diminished by the

advent of Flash previews on Veoh. (Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶2, Ex. A (Papa Depo.

at 157:20-159:19)). The creation of the screencaps is entirely automated.

3. Post-Publication “Spot Check”

Veoh employees occasionally “spot check” videos after publication for compliance with

Veoh’s policies and to ensure accuracy in the description and categorization of the content. 

(See Scherb Decl. ¶2, Ex. B (Dunning Depo. at 136:10-138:22)). For example, Veoh has, on

occasion, edited the video description field. And, when adult content was still permitted on

veoh.com, Veoh employees sometimes reviewed files to ensure proper ratings on any file

containing sexually explicit material and reviewed sexually explicit files to determine whether

they should be identified as “gay” or “straight” and added tags as needed. (See Sperlein Decl.

ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶2, Ex. A (Papa Depo. at 203:4-15, 244:6-245:17); Sperlein Supplemental

Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, Ex. A (Papa Depo. at 110:10-111:16)). Additionally, if a “spot

check” reveals an instance of blatant copyright infringement, Veoh disables access to such

material. For example, Veoh has, in at least one instance, removed videos of a movie known to

have been released in only theaters. (Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶2, Ex. A (Papa Depo.

at 100:24-101:6)).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 8 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

Veoh’s policies previously stated that all video content was approved by editors; and,

the record indicates that Veoh’s employees may have watched the first ten videos submitted to

veoh.com by users. However, Veoh claims that the policy was never implemented because it

was not feasible to do so given the number of user submissions that have since been made. (See

Scherb Decl., ¶2, Ex. A (Shapiro Depo. at 10:17-17:10; Ex. B (Dunning Depo. at 129:24-

130:15, 138:4-22); Ex. C (Papa Depo., Vol. 1 at 35:6-24)).

Io now seeks summary judgment on liability for direct, contributory and vicarious

copyright infringement. Veoh contends that it qualifies for “safe harbor” under DMCA, Section

512(c).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P.

56(c)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears

the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and identifying portions of

the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits which

demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). In order to meet its burden, “the moving party must either produce evidence

negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the

nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate

burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc.,

210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

produce evidence supporting its claims or defenses. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2); Nissan Fire &

Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., 210 F.3d at 1102. The non-moving party may not rest upon mere

allegations or denials of the adverse party’s evidence, but instead must produce admissible

evidence that shows there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See FED. R. CIV. P.

56(e)(2). A genuine issue of fact is one that could reasonably be resolved in favor of either

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 9 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

party. A dispute is “material” only if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

“When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only

point out ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” 

Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at

325). Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere

allegations or denials, but must present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that there is a

genuine issue for trial. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Ordinarily, issues concerning liability would be examined before determining whether

any safe harbor applies. However, while the DMCA safe harbors do not immunize online

service providers from liability, they provide copyright owners with only limited injunctive

relief. Under the circumstances presented here, the court finds it appropriate and more efficient

to first address Veoh’s motion as to the applicability of the safe harbor under DMCA section

512(c). See Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp.2d 1090, 1098 (W.D. Wa. 2004)

(“[E]ven if [plaintiff’s] copyright infringement claims can bare [sic] fruit, [defendant’s] liability

protection ensures that the claims will wither on the vine”); see also CoStar Group, Inc. v.

Loopnet, Inc., 164 F. Supp.2d 688, 699 (D. Md. 2001) (“On summary judgment, it is often

appropriate for a court to decide issues out of the traditional order because a dispute of fact is

only material if it can affect the outcome of proceeding.”).

As discussed more fully below, even assuming that plaintiff’s infringement claims pass

summary judgment muster, this court concludes that Veoh is eligible for safe harbor protection

from damages and, further, that the limited injunctive relief provided under the DMCA is moot.

A. The DMCA

Enacted in 1998, the DMCA was “designed to facilitate the robust development and

world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and

education in the digital age.” S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 1-2 (1998). “Difficult and controversial

questions of copyright liability in the online world prompted Congress to enact Title II of the

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 10 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

DMCA, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA).” Ellison v.

Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to strike a balance between their

respective interests, OCILLA seeks to “preserve[] strong incentives for service providers and

copyright owners to cooperate to detect and deal with copyright infringements that take place in

the digital networked environment.” S. Rep. 105-190, at 20 (1998); H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at

49 (1998). “Congress hoped to provide ‘greater certainty to service providers concerning their

legal exposure for infringements that may occur in the course of their activities.’” Ellison, 357

F.3d at 1076 (quoting S. Rep. 105-190, at 20 (1998); H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at 49-50 (1998)).

OCILLA enables qualifying service providers to limit their liability for claimed

copyright infringement under four “safe harbors.” See 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d). “These safe

harbors provide protection from liability for: (1) transitory digital network communications; (2)

system caching; (3) information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users; and

(4) information location tools.” Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1076-77. “These safe harbors limit

liability but ‘do not affect the question of ultimate liability under the various doctrines of

direct, vicarious, and contributory liability.’” Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102,

1109 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp.2d 1146,

1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). That is, they protect qualifying service providers from liability for all

monetary relief for direct, vicarious and contributory infringement, leaving copyright owners

with limited injunctive relief. Corbis Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1098-99. Further, the safe

harbor provisions are not exclusive of any other defense an accused infringer might have. 

CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d at 1109 (“‘[N]othing in the language of § 512 indicates that the

limitation on liability described therein is exclusive.’”) (quoting CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet,

Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 552 (4th Cir. 2004)). “Far short of adopting enhanced or wholly new

standards to evaluate claims of copyright infringement against online service providers,

Congress provided that OCILLA’s ‘limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be

liable under existing principles of law.’” Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1077 (quoting S. Rep. 105-190,

19 (1998)).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 11 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6 “Standard technical measures” are defined as “technical measures that are

used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works” and which:

(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright

owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry

standards process;

(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory

terms; and

(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial

burdens on their systems or networks.

17 U.S.C.§ 512(i)(2)(A)-(C).

7 DMCA Section 512 contains two definitions of the term “service provider.” 

See 17 U.S.C. § 512(k). Because Veoh’s motion is based only on its claimed eligibility for

safe harbor under Section 512(c), the broader definition under Section 512(k)(1)(B) applies. 

Under that provision, “the term ‘service provider’ means a provider of online services or

network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in

subparagraph (A).” 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B).

12

With these principles in mind, the court now considers whether Veoh is entitled to safe

harbor with respect to the alleged infringing activity here.

B. DMCA Threshold Requirements

To avail itself of any of the four safe harbors, Veoh must first satisfy certain threshold

requirements. That is, it must be a “service provider” (see 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)) and it must

adopt, reasonably implement and inform subscribers of a policy providing that it may, in

appropriate circumstances, terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. See 17 U.S.C. §

512(i)(1)(A); Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1080. Further, the service provider is obliged to

accommodate, and must not interfere with, “standard technical measures”6 used by copyright

owners to identify or protect copyrighted works.” See 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(B); Ellison, 357

F.3d at 1080.

Io does not dispute that Veoh is a “service provider” as defined by DMCA Section

512(k)(1)(B).7 Nor does it dispute that Veoh (a) has adopted and informed account holders of

its repeat infringer policy and (b) accommodates, and does not interfere with, “standard

technical measures” used to protect copyrighted works. However, Io contends that there is a

triable issue whether Veoh implements its repeat infringer policy in a reasonable manner.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 12 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

13

The DMCA does not say what “reasonably implemented” means. Nonetheless, the

Ninth Circuit has held that “a service provider ‘implements’ a policy if it has a working

notification system, a procedure for dealing with DMCA-compliant notifications, and if it does

not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue such

notifications.” CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d at 1109. “The statute permits service providers to

implement a variety of procedures, but an implementation is reasonable if, under ‘appropriate

circumstances,’ the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe

copyright.” Id.

As discussed above, Veoh’s evidence indicates that it has a working notification system

and a procedure for dealing with copyright infringement notices:

• Since at least April 2006, and at all times encompassed by the complaint, Veoh’s

policies have identified its designated Copyright Agent to receive notification of

claimed violations and provide information about how and where to send notices

of claimed infringement. (See Papa Decl., Exs. A, C, D, F and G).

• Veoh often responds to infringement notices the same day they are received, or

at most, within a few days. (Dunning Decl. ¶ 9).

• When Veoh receives notice that a user has uploaded infringing content after a

first warning, then the account is terminated, all content provided by that user is

disabled (unless the content was also published by another non-terminated user

and is not the subject of a DMCA notice), and the user’s email address is

blocked so that a new account cannot be opened with that same address. (See

Dunning Decl. ¶¶ 10-12; Scherb Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. C (Papa Depo., Vol.1, 98:3-7).

• Veoh has adopted means for generating a “hash,” or digital “fingerprint,” for

each video file. This technology essentially enables Veoh to terminate access to

any other identical files and prevent additional identical files from ever being

uploaded by any user. (Dunning Decl. ¶ 13).

Veoh asserts that, since its website was launched, it has terminated 1,096 users for

repeat copyright violations. (Id., ¶ 12). Plaintiff has presented no evidence to the contrary; and,

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 13 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

14

there is no suggestion in the record before the court that Veoh actively prevents copyright

owners from collecting information needed to issue notification of claimed copyright violations.

Io nevertheless contends that Veoh’s policy fails because it does not prevent repeat

infringers from reappearing on Veoh under a pseudonym and a different email address. At one

time, Veoh apparently attempted to verify a user’s email address by sending a confirming email

message before allowing that user to upload video files to veoh.com. However, Veoh says that

practice was discontinued as “an error-prone process.” (See Scherb Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. B (Dunning

Depo., 72:14-23)). Io agrees that Veoh is not obliged to locate repeat infringers, but argues that

there is no way for Veoh to discover if a disingenuous user has, in fact, reappeared with a new

account. Here, Io points out that its vice president, Keith Ruoff, was able to obtain a new Veoh

account using the pseudonym “FauxUser99” and the email address “FauxUser01@yahoo.com”

– an address which he says he acquired from Yahoo! using the pseudonym “John Doe.” (Ruoff

Decl., ¶7). In essence, Io contends that Veoh fails to reasonably track repeat infringers and that

its repeat infringer policy is tantamount to no policy at all. This court disagrees.

With respect to the reasonableness of a service provider’s implementation, the Ninth

Circuit has explained:

A service provider reasonably implements its repeat infringer policy

if it terminates users “when appropriate.” See Corbis, 351 F. Supp.2d at 1104.

Section 512(i) itself does not clarify when it is “appropriate” for service

providers to act. It only requires that a service provider terminate users who

are “repeat infringers.”

To identify and terminate repeat infringers, a service provider need

not affirmatively police its users for evidence of repeat infringement. Section 512(c) states that “[a] service provider shall not be liable for monetary

relief” if it does not know of infringement. A service provider is also not liable

under § 512(c) if it acts “expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the

material” when it (1) has actual knowledge, (2) is aware of facts or circumstances

from which infringing activity is apparent, or (3) has received notification of

claimed infringement meeting the requirements of § 512(c)(3). Were we to

require service providers to terminate users under circumstances other than

those specified in § 512(c), § 512(c)’s grant of immunity would be meaningless.

This interpretation of the statute is supported by legislative history. See H.R.

Rep., at 61 (Section 512(i) is not intended “to undermine the . . . knowledge

standard of [§ 512](c).”).

Id. at 1111 (citing H.R. Rep., at 61 (1998) (emphasis added).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 14 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

15

Moreover, the hypothetical possibility that a rogue user might reappear under a different

user name and identity does not raise a genuine fact issue as to the implementation of Veoh’s

policy. In Corbis, plaintiff alleged that Amazon failed to reasonably implement its repeat

infringer policy because it did not prevent a prior infringer from reappearing on one of

Amazon’s retail platforms under different names. Observing that the DMCA requires

reasonable, not perfect, policies, the court held that “[t]he mere fact that [the repeat infringer]

appeared on zShops under a different user name and identity does not, by itself, create a

legitimate question of fact regarding the procedural implementation of Amazon’s termination

policy.” 351 F. Supp.2d at 1104. There, plaintiff presented no evidence that Amazon

intentionally allowed the repeat infringer to open new accounts. Nor did plaintiff suggest that a

more effective and reasonable means of denying the repeat infringer’s access could have been

implemented by Amazon. Id. at 1103-04.

Here, Io has presented no evidence that a repeat infringer has, in fact, established a new

account under false pretenses, much less that Veoh has intentionally allowed that to happen. Its

supposition about the hypothetical possibility that a repeat infringer may have done so is not

evidence. There is no indication that Mr. Ruoff is a repeat infringer who should have been

blocked; and, the fact that he was able to open a second account does not give rise to a genuine

issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of Veoh’s implementation.

Citing to an unpublished decision from this district, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,

No. C99-05183, 2000 WL 573136, (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2000), Io contends that, in order to

satisfy section 512(i), Veoh must be required to track users by their actual names or by Internet

Protocol (“IP”) addresses. That decision is readily distinguishable. There, the court found a

triable issue as to whether Napster reasonably implemented its repeat infringer policy because

plaintiff submitted evidence that Napster was not only capable of blocking IP addresses, but had

in fact done so for certain users. See id. at *9-10.

Here, Io has presented no evidence suggesting that tracking (or verifying) users’ actual

identity or that blocking their IP addresses is a more effective reasonable means of

implementation. There is no material dispute that, while IP addresses identify a particular

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 15 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The court takes judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of “IP address” as

to the fact that an IP address may be shared by multiple users. This is not a matter that is

subject to reasonable dispute.

16

computer connected to the Internet, they do not distinguish between users (e.g., family

members) who may share the same computer. See generally Columbia Ins. Co. v.

Seescandy.Com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 575 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (IP addresses “are a series of numbers

that are used to specify the address of a particular machine connected to the Internet.”)

(emphasis added).8

More to the point, section 512(i) does not require service providers to track users in a

particular way to or affirmatively police users for evidence of repeat infringement. See CCBill,

488 F.3d at 1109-10. Instead, “[a] policy is unreasonable only if the service provider failed to

respond when it had knowledge of the infringement.” Id. at 1113. Here, the uncontroverted

evidence shows that Veoh (a) has a working notification system, (b) has a procedure for dealing

with DMCA-compliant notifications, and (c) does not actively prevent copyright owners from

collecting information necessary to issue such notices. Plaintiff says that defendant does not

qualify for safe harbor because it does not track infringers. However, Veoh does track content

that has been identified as infringing and permanently blocks that content from ever being

uploaded by any user.

Accordingly, the court finds that Veoh has presented evidence that it satisfies the

threshold requirements to qualify for safe harbor under the DMCA. Plaintiff has not presented

evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Veoh implements its repeat

infringer policy in a reasonable manner.

The court now turns to the question whether Veoh qualifies for safe harbor under

Section 512(c).

C. DMCA Section 512(c) Safe Harbor

DMCA Section 512(c) limits a service provider’s liability “for infringement of copyright

by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network

controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). A service provider

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 16 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9 Additionally, Section 512(c)(2) requires service providers to designate an

agent to receive notification of alleged copyright violations. As noted above, there is no

dispute that Veoh has done so.

17

that meets the threshold conditions of Section 512(i) then qualifies for safe harbor under Section

512(c) if it:

(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using

the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or

circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to

remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing

activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to

control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3),

responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is

claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)-(C).9

 In essence, a service provider is eligible for safe harbor under

section 512(c) if it (1) does not know of infringement; or (2) acts expeditiously to remove or

disable access to the material when it (a) has actual knowledge, (b) is aware of facts or

circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or (c) has received DMCA-compliant

notice; and (3) either does not have the right and ability to control the infringing activity, or – if

it does – that it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.

According to plaintiff, Veoh does not qualify for safe harbor under Section 512(c)

because (a) the materials in question were not stored on Veoh’s system at the direction of a

user; (b) Veoh was aware of apparent infringing activity; and (c) Veoh has the right and ability

to control the infringing activity and obtains a direct financial benefit from such activities. The

court will address each of these contentions in turn.

1. “At the Direction of a User”

As stated above, section 512(c) provides safe harbor “for infringement of a copyright by

reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material” residing on a service provider’s

system or network. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). The legislative history indicates that such storage

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 17 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

includes, by way of example, “providing server space for a user’s web site, for a chatroom, or

other forum in which material may be posted at the direction of users.” H.R. Rep. 105-551 (II),

at 53 (1998)). Excluded from Section 512(c)’s safe harbor is “material ‘that resides on the

system or network operated by or for the service provider through its own acts or decisions and

not at the direction of a user.’” CoStar Group., Inc., 164 F. Supp.2d at 701 (quoting H.R. Rep.

105-551 (II), at 53 (1998)).

Plaintiff contends that the Flash files and screencaps created during the publication

process are not stored on Veoh’s system “at the direction of a user,” but by Veoh’s own acts and

decisions. Here, it asserts that users do not themselves create or possess the Flash and stillimage files when they upload videos to Veoh’s system. It further contends that, by agreeing

that Veoh may make their videos freely available on its website, users never instruct or direct

Veoh to create these files, except in the broadest possible sense. Io argues that Section 512(c)

was not intended to protect the creation (automated or not) of these files because Veoh uses

them as a means of distribution (e.g., by indexing content and organizing them into lists), and

not just storage.

Defendant does not deny that, using third-party software, its system creates the Flash

and still-image files from user-submitted content. Nonetheless, Veoh maintains that these files

are the result of an automated encoding process initiated entirely at the volition of users when

they upload video files. Veoh maintains that it falls within the Section 512(c) safe harbor

because the Flash and still-image files are used to facilitate access to content submitted to its

website.

There is no apparent dispute as to the material facts – only as to the conclusions to be

drawn from them. Essentially, the issue is whether Veoh is disqualified from Section 512(c)’s

safe harbor because of automated functions that facilitate access to user-submitted content on its

website. In the context of Veoh’s business, this appears to be a matter of first impression. 

Based on the record presented, this court concludes that Veoh is not disqualified from Section

512(c) safe harbor on this basis.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 18 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

19

To begin, the structure and language of OCILLA indicate that service providers seeking

safe harbor under Section 512(c) are not limited to merely storing material. The statute itself is

structured in a way that distinguishes between so-called “conduit only” functions under Section

512(a) and those functions addressed by Section 512(c) (and other subsections as well). See 17

U.S.C. § 512(n) (“Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for

purposes of applying this section.”). Perhaps most notably, OCILLA contains two definitions

of “service provider.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(k). The narrower definition, which pertains only to

service providers falling under Section 512(a), “means an entity offering the transmission,

routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among

points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the

content of the material as sent or received.” Id., § 512(k)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

By contrast, no such limitation as to the modification of material is included in the

broader definition of “service provider,” which the parties agree applies to Veoh. Instead, “the

term ‘service provider’ means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of

facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).” 17 U.S.C. §

512(k)(1)(B). Had Congress intended to include a limitation as to a service provider’s

modification of user-submitted information, it would have said so expressly and

unambiguously.

Moreover, caselaw also supports the conclusion that Veoh is not precluded from safe

harbor under Section 512(c) by virtue of its automated processing of user-submitted content. In

at least one case, a service provider was not precluded from safe harbor even when its

employees engaged in some review of submitted materials before posting them to defendant’s

website. In CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., the defendant offered a service that enabled

subscribers to upload real estate photos to a folder on the defendant’s system. 164 F. Supp.2d

688 (D. Md. 2001). Defendant’s employees briefly reviewed the submitted photos and posted

to the website only those that met defendant’s criteria – that is, any photos that did not depict

real estate or which obviously were copyrighted by a third-party would not be posted. The

court held that defendant nonetheless satisfied the requirement that material be stored at the

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 19 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

20

direction of a user. In essence, it concluded that the photos were uploaded, in the first instance,

at the volition of users and that defendant’s employees simply performed a “gateway” function

that furthered the goals of the DMCA. Id. at 702.

Here, Veoh has simply established a system whereby software automatically processes

user-submitted content and recasts it in a format that is readily accessible to its users. Veoh preselects the software parameters for the process from a range of default values set by the thirdparty software. (See Dunning Decl. ISO Defendant’s Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶¶ 3-4). But

Veoh does not itself actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. Nor does it preview

or select the files before the upload is completed. Instead, video files are uploaded through an

automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh’s users. See The Cartoon

Network LP, LLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., — F.3d —, Nos. 07-1480-cv(L), 07-1511-cv(CON),

2008 WL 2952614 at *9 (2d Cir., Aug. 4, 2008) (“In determining who actually ‘makes’ a copy,

a significant difference exists between making a request to a human employee, who then

volitionally operates the copying system to make the copy, and issuing a command directly to a

system, which automatically engages in no volitional conduct.”). Inasmuch as this is a means

of facilitating user access to material on its website, this court finds that Veoh does not lose safe

harbor through the automated creation of these files. “[O]ne of the stated purposes of [the

DMCA] was to ‘facilitate the robust development and worldwide expansion of electronic

commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age.’” Perfect

10, Inc. v. VISA Int’l Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 794 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Rep.

105-190, at 1-2 (1998)).

2. Actual Knowledge of Infringing Activity

It is undisputed that, before it filed the instant action, plaintiff provided no notice to

Veoh of any claimed copyright infringement. Thus, there is no question on the record presented

that Veoh lacked actual knowledge of the alleged infringing activity at issue. See 17 U.S.C. §

512(c)(1)(A) and (C); see also Corbis Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1107 (“[Plaintiff’s] decision to

forego the DMCA notice provisions . . . stripped it of the most powerful evidence of a service

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 20 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

21

provider’s knowledge – actual notice of infringement from the copyright holder.”) (citation

omitted).

3. Apparent Infringing Activity

Nonetheless, Io contends that Veoh was aware of several signs of apparent infringing

activity. Under this so-called “red flag” test, a service provider may lose safe harbor “if it fails

to take action with regard to infringing material when it is ‘aware of facts or circumstances from

which infringing activity is apparent.’” CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1114 (quoting 17 U.S.C. §

512(c)(1)(A)(ii)). In determining whether a service provider has such awareness, “the question

is not ‘what a reasonable person would have deduced given all the circumstances.’” Corbis

Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1108 (quoting 3 Nimmer on Copyright, § 12B.04[A][1], at 12B-49). 

“Instead the question is whether the service provider deliberately proceeded in the face of

blatant factors of which it was aware.” Id. In other words, “apparent knowledge requires

evidence that a service provider ‘turned a blind eye to ‘red flags’ of obvious infringement.’” Id.

(quoting H.R.Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 57).

Io argues that there were several “red flags” of obvious infringement here. Io says that,

under 17 U.S.C. § 205(c), its copyright registrations provided constructive knowledge as to its

ownership of the works. Additionally, plaintiff says that it was obvious that the works in

question were professionally created and, further, that one of them contained Io’s trademark. 

(See Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶¶ 15-16, Ex. F). In any event, Io maintains that the

absence of labels required under 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(4) was a “red flag” that the uploading user

did not have authority to submit the content in question.

However, none of the allegedly infringing video files uploaded by Veoh’s users

contained Io’s copyright notices. (See Scherb Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. J (Io’s response to RFA No. 58);

Ex. G (Ruoff Depo., 55:13-16, 56:19-57:13)). Although one of the works did contain plaintiff’s

trademark several minutes into the clip, there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that

Veoh was aware of, but chose to ignore, it. Nor is this court convinced that the professionally

created nature of submitted content constitutes a per se “red flag” of infringement sufficient to

impute the requisite level of knowledge or awareness to Veoh. Indeed, with the video

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 21 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10 Plaintiff claims that the user profile page for one of the users who submitted

its works to Veoh indicates that the user was a 17-year old – i.e., someone who was not

legally permitted to view Io’s works, much less upload them to defendant’s system. (See

Ruoff Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶ 21). Plaintiff did not raise this argument in support of its

opposition to Veoh’s motion as to the DMCA safe harbor. At any rate, there is no evidence

to suggest that Veoh was aware of, but chose to ignore, this circumstance.

22

equipment available to the general public today, there may be little, if any, distinction between

“professional” and amateur productions.

Similarly unavailing are Io’s arguments as to the sexually explicit nature of the works

themselves.10 Io nevertheless contends that the absence of labels on the material in question

under 18 U.S.C. § 2257 was a “red flag” of apparent copyright infringement. In essence, the

statute to which Io refers – section 2257 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

of 1988 – requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain certain records as to the

performers depicted and to label each such work with a statement indicating where those

records are located. See 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a) and (f). There is some indication in the record

that Veoh generally was aware of this law. (See Sperlein Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶2, Ex. A

(Papa Depo. at 195:19-196:3; Suppl. Sperlein Decl., Ex. D (Styn Depo. at 45:1-48:13)). Io

argues that Veoh therefore should have known that no legitimate producer of sexually explicit

material would have omitted the requisite labels on the video clips in question.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it has, at best, raised a fact

question as to whether Veoh was aware that federal labeling laws might have been violated. 

However, the matter before this court does not concern whether there was a violation of those

laws. Under the circumstances presented here, the absence of required labels does not give rise

to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Veoh had the requisite level of knowledge or

awareness that plaintiff’s copyrights were being violated. Even “[w]hen a website traffics in

pictures that are titillating by nature” and describes them as “illegal” or “stolen,” “[w]e do not

place the burden of determining whether photographs are actually illegal on a service provider.” 

CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1114.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 22 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

23

4. Acts Expeditiously to Remove or Disable Access to Material

Even assuming Veoh had sufficient knowledge or awareness of the allegedly infringing

activity in question, Veoh would not lose safe harbor protection if it acted expeditiously to

remove, or disable access to, the material. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 512(c)(1)(C);

see also Corbis Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1108. The instant action presents a somewhat unusual

situation in that Veoh independently removed all adult content from its website before it

received notice of any claimed copyright violations.

Nevertheless, undisputed evidence submitted by Veoh shows that when it receives

DMCA-compliant notice of copyright infringement, it responds and removes noticed content as

necessary on the same day the notice is received (or within a few days thereafter). (Dunning

Decl. ¶ 9).

In addition to responding to DMCA notices, Veoh says that it also promptly investigates

other complaints about content on its website. Here, Veoh points out that its website has a

“Flag It!” feature that enables users to bring certain content to Veoh’s attention by “flagging” it

– that is, selecting from a set list of reasons (e.g., misrated content, sexually explicit content,

obscene content, etc.). (Id., Ex. E). Plaintiff argues that Veoh has willfully blinded itself to

facts suggesting infringement because the list of reasons on the “Flag It!” feature no longer

contains a choice for “appears to contain copyrighted material.” Yet, the “Flag It!” feature

itself contains a notice, prominently displayed at the top of the “Flag It!” dialog box, directing

copyright owners to a link with instructions for submitting a copyright infringement notice to

Veoh. (Id.).

In sum, there is no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Veoh was aware

of, but deliberately chose to ignore, “red flags” of infringement or that Veoh fails to act

expeditiously to remove or disable access to infringing material upon obtaining knowledge or

awareness of infringing activity.

5. Right and Ability to Control Infringing Activity

A service provider nonetheless loses the protection of Section 512(c)’s safe harbor

where it (a) has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and (b) receives a financial

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 23 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

24

benefit directly attributable to such activity. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B). “Both elements must be

met for the safe harbor to be denied.” Corbis Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1109. These

requirements grew out of the common law standard for vicarious liability, and the Ninth Circuit

has indicated that these elements under the DMCA are to be interpreted consistently with

common law. See CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1117 (“[W]e hold that ‘direct financial benefit’ should

be interpreted consistent with the similarly-worded common law standard for vicarious

copyright liability.”). For present purposes, even assuming (without deciding) that Veoh

received a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringing activity, this court finds that

defendant does not have the right and ability to control such activity.

As formulated by the Supreme Court, one “infringes vicariously by profiting from direct

infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2766 (2005). “Thus, under

Grokster, a defendant exercises control over a direct infringer when he has both a legal right to

stop or limit the directly infringing conduct, as well as the practical ability to do so.” Perfect

10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff contends that elements of the requisite “right and ability to control” are present

here because Veoh has established and enforced policies that prohibit users from engaging in a

host of illegal and other conduct on its website – namely, policies which prohibit users from (a)

violating the intellectual property rights of others, (b) making unsolicited offers, sending ads,

proposals or junk mail, (c) impersonating other people, (d) misrepresenting sources of material,

(e) harassing, abusing, defaming, threatening or defrauding others, (f) linking to password

protected areas and (g) spidering material. (See Papa Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. A-H; Ruoff Decl. ISO

Plaintiff’s MSJ ¶ 9, Exs. B and C). Plaintiff emphasizes that Veoh exercises the right to police

its system by conducting occasional “spot checks” of video files for compliance and that Veoh

has enforced its policies by removing content and terminating offending accounts.

However, the plain language of section 512(c) indicates that the pertinent inquiry is not

whether Veoh has the right and ability to control it system, but rather, whether it has the right

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 24 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

25

and ability to control the infringing activity. Under the facts and circumstances presented here,

the two are not one and the same.

To begin, the statute presupposes a service provider’s control of its system or network. 

See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1) (applying safe harbor to “material that resides on a system or network

controlled or operated by or for the service provider.”) (emphasis added). The safe harbor will

be closed only to those service providers who, among other things, have the “right and ability to

control” the “infringing activity.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

Moreover, courts have held that the right and ability to control infringing activity, as the

concept is used in the DMCA, cannot simply mean the ability of a service provider to block or

remove access to materials posted on its website or stored on its system. See Corbis Corp., 351

F. Supp.2d at 1110; CoStar Group, Inc., 164 F. Supp.2d at 704; Hendrikson v. eBay, Inc., 165

F. Supp.2d 1082, 1093-94 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Indeed, a contrary holding would render the

DMCA internally inconsistent:

The DMCA specifically requires a service provider to remove or

block access to materials posted on its system when it receives notice

of claimed infringement. The DMCA also provides that the limitations

on liability only apply to a service provider that has adopted and

reasonably implemented . . . a policy that provides for the termination

in appropriate circumstances of [users] of the service provider’s

system or network who are repeat infringers. Congress could not have

intended for courts to hold that a service provider loses immunity under

the safe harbor provision of the DMCA because it engages in acts that

are specifically required by the DMCA.

Hendrickson, 165 F. Supp.2d at 1093-94 (internal quotes and citations omitted). Borrowing

from patent infringement cases involving the intent requirement for contributory liability of

trademark licensors, one court has concluded that, instead, “something more” is required. 

Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp.2d at 1181-82. 

Precisely what constitutes the requisite right and ability to control in the present context

is somewhat hard to define, although this court is not without some guidance. At least one court

has observed that the requisite “right and ability to control” “presupposes some antecedent

ability to limit or filter copyrighted material.” Tur v. YouTube, Inc., No. CV064436, 2007 WL

1893635 at *3 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2007).

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 25 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

26

Such a conclusion does not appear to be inconsistent with precedent set in Fonovisa, Inc.

v. Cherry Hill Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) and A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster,

Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). In Fonovisa, the plaintiff owned copyrights and trademarks

in certain music recordings. It claimed that the defendant, a swap meet proprietor, was liable

for third-party vendors’ sales of infringing counterfeit recordings. Sufficient elements of

control were found where defendant had the right to terminate vendors for any reason, promoted

the swap meet, and controlled customers’ access to the swap meet area. Id. at 262. Notably,

there was no dispute that the defendant was aware that vendors were selling counterfeit

recordings in violation of plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks. Indeed, it was alleged that the

County Sheriff previously seized thousands of counterfeit recordings from the swap meet and

notified the defendant that infringing sales continued. Id. at 261. The defendant evidently

agreed to provide the Sheriff with information about each vendor, but did not do so. Id. at 264. 

In essence, the swap meet proprietor and the infringing vendors “were engaged in a mutual

enterprise of infringement.” See VISA Int’l Services Ass’n, 494 F.3d at 798.

Fonovisa was extended to the online context in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239

F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Napster concerned the Internet service infamous for its software that

facilitated the transmission of copyrighted music between and among its users free of charge. 

The court stated that “[t]he ability to block infringers’ access to a particular environment for

any reason whatsoever is evidence of the right and ability to supervise.” Id. at 1023 (citing

Fonovisa, 76 F.3d at 262). However, the court went on to explain that “[t]o escape imposition

of vicarious liability, the reserved right to police must be exercised to its fullest extent. Turning

a blind eye to detectable acts of infringement for the sake of profit gives rise to liability.” Id.

(emphasis added). There, plaintiffs were successful in establishing a likelihood of success on

the merits where Napster controlled access to its system, reserved the right to terminate user

accounts for any reason and had the ability to locate infringing material listed on its search

indices, but nonetheless failed to police its system to prevent the exchange of copyrighted

material Id. at 1023-24.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 26 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

More recently in the electronic commerce context, other businesses have been found not

to have the requisite right and ability to control infringing activity. For example, in

Amazon.com, Inc., Google was found not to have the right and ability to control the infringing

activity of third-party websites where Google did not have contractual relationships with the

third-party websites and lacked the practical ability to police their activities. 508 F.3d at 1173-

75. In VISA Int’l Service Ass’n, plaintiff alleged that Visa was secondarily liable for copyright

infringement because its credit card payment services facilitated the purchase of infringing

material online. Affirming the dismissal of those claims, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Visa

lacked the ability to block access to the Internet or to particular websites and had no role in the

alleged infringing activity. 494 F.3d at 802-05. Although Visa could exert financial pressure

by blocking access to its payment systems, the court concluded that “[f]or vicarious liability to

attach . . . the defendant must have the right and ability to supervise and control the

infringement, not just affect it, and Defendants do not have this right or ability.” Id. at 805.

By contrast, an on-line age verification service was found to have the requisite

“something more” than the mere ability to remove or block access to its website where it

prescreened websites within its network, gave those websites extensive advice, and prohibited

the proliferation of identical sites within its network. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp.2d

at 1181-82.

In the instant case, plaintiff maintains that Veoh has precisely the kind of control found

in Napster and goes even further than the defendant in Cybernet Ventures. It points out that

Veoh operates a closed system network requiring user registration, maintains a central index of

video files on its servers, reserves the right to terminate user accounts for any reason, has the

ability to remove infringing material from its website, and can even disable access to such

material on its users’ hard drives (assuming their computers are still connected to the Internet). 

It argues that the requisite control is further evidenced by the creation of the Flash and stillimage files, the indexing of those files, Veoh’s ability to feature certain videos on portions of its

website, and by the fact that users are required to agree that Veoh shall have the irrevocable and

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 27 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

perpetual right to distribute submitted material freely on its website. (Papa Decl. ¶5, Exs. A and

E).

However, Veoh is distinct from Napster in at least one significant respect. Napster

existed solely to provide the site and facilities for copyright infringement, and its control over

its system was directly intertwined with its ability to control infringing activity. See Napster,

239 F.3d at 1020 n.5; see also VISA Int’l Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d at 799 n.10 (“In fact, as

virtually every interested college student knew – and as the program’s creator expressly

admitted – the sole purpose of the Napster program was to provide a forum for easy copyright

infringement.”).

Here, by contrast, Veoh’s right and ability to control its system does not equate to the

right and ability to control infringing activity. Unlike Napster, there is no suggestion that Veoh

aims to encourage copyright infringement on its system. And, there is no evidence that Veoh

can control what content users choose to upload before it is uploaded. Plaintiff suggests that

Veoh should be required to prescreen every submission before it is published. However, Veoh

has submitted evidence indicating that it has received hundreds of thousands of video files from

users. (Dunning Decl. in Opp. to Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶ 6). Plaintiff has presented no evidence to

refute those numbers; and, this court finds that no reasonable juror could conclude that a

comprehensive review of every file would be feasible.

Even if such a review were feasible, there is no assurance that Veoh could have

accurately identified the infringing content in question. True, Veoh maintains a central index of

videos on its servers. However, unlike Napster (whose index was comprised entirely of pirated

material), Veoh’s ability to control its index does not equate to an ability to identify and

terminate infringing videos. For the most part, the files in question did not bear titles

resembling plaintiff’s works; and, Io did not provide Veoh with its titles to search. (See Ruoff

Decl. ISO Plaintiff’s MSJ, ¶¶ 13-14 and Exhs. D & E). The record suggests that, upon review

of the files, Io itself was not able to readily identify which of its works allegedly were infringed. 

It initially alleged copyright violations as to eight films. (See Complaint, ¶22). However, in the

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 28 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11 Briefly stated, California Penal Code section 653w prohibits the knowing

possession of a “physical embodiment” of an audiovisual work that does not identify the

manufacturer and author. Cal. Pen. Code § 653w(a).

29

course of discovery, it dropped one of those films and added three others. (See Scherb Decl. ¶

3, Ex. I).

Perhaps most importantly, there is no indication that Veoh has failed to police its system

to the fullest extent permitted by its architecture. See Napster, 239 F.3d at 1024 (stating that the

“reserved ‘right and ability’ to police is cabined by the system’s current architecture.”). 

Plaintiff has presented no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to Veoh’s

enforcement of its terms of use, including through the termination of access to allegedly

infringing material and the termination of user accounts for policy violations. As discussed

above, the record presented shows that Veoh has taken down blatantly infringing content,

promptly responds to infringement notices, terminates infringing content on its system and its

users’ hard drives (and prevents that same content from being uploaded again), and terminates

the accounts of repeat offenders. (See Dunning Decl. ¶¶ 10-13; Scherb Decl. Ex. C (Papa Depo.,

Vol.1, 98:3-7). Once content has been identified as infringing, Veoh’s digital fingerprint

technology also prevents the same infringing content from ever being uploaded again. All of

this indicates that Veoh has taken steps to reduce, not foster, the incidence of copyright

infringement on its website.

Plaintiff nevertheless argues that Veoh should have changed its business operations to

prevent infringing activity from occurring on its site. Specifically, it contends that Veoh should

have verified the source of all incoming videos by obtaining and confirming the names and

addresses of the submitting user, the producer, as well as the submitting user’s authority to

upload a given file. It further asserts that California Penal Code § 653w11 and 18 U.S.C. § 2257

(the federal labeling law discussed above) require as much and that the allegedly infringing

conduct in question should have been readily apparent in view of the requirements of those

statutes. Alternatively, plaintiff contends that, if Veoh cannot prevent infringement on its site

given the current volume of its business, then Veoh should be required to either hire more

employees or to decrease its operations and limit its business to a manageable number of users

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 29 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12 OCILLA Section 512(j) provides in relevant part:

With respect to conduct other than that which qualifies for the limitation

on remedies set forth in subsection (a), the court may grant injunctive relief

30

(whatever that number might be). Its not-so-subtle suggestion is that, if Veoh cannot prevent

infringement from ever occurring, then it should not be allowed to exist.

The issue here is not Veoh’s compliance with California Penal Code § 653w and 18

U.S.C. § 2257. Nor is the issue whether Veoh should have been aware of that certain content

was infringing. Rather the question is whether Veoh declined to exercise a right to stop it. 

Declining to change business operations is not the same as declining to exercise a right and

ability to control infringing activity. See Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d at 1175. Moreover, as

discussed above, the DMCA does not require service providers to deal with infringers in a

particular way. See CCBill, 488 F.3d at 1109 (“[T]he DMCA permits service providers to

implement a variety of procedures” to deal with repeat infringers). Here, there is no genuine

issue of material fact that Veoh actively enforces its user policy and acts expeditiously to

remove, or disable access to infringing material. Further, plaintiff’s suggestion that Veoh must

be required to reduce or limit its business operations is contrary to one of the stated goals of the

DMCA. The DMCA was intended to facilitate the growth of electronic commerce, not squelch

it. S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 1-2 (105th Congress, 2d Session 1998).

In sum, Io has not raised a genuine issue of material fact that Veoh had the right and

ability to control the alleged infringing activity on veoh.com. This court finds that there is no

triable fact issue as to whether Veoh qualifies for safe harbor under section 512(c) with respect

to the alleged infringing activity in question.

While the DMCA’s safe harbors do not immunize qualified service providers from

liability, “[t]hey do . . . protect eligible service providers from all monetary and most equitable

relief that may arise from copyright liability.” See Corbis Corp., 351 F. Supp.2d at 1098-99. 

Because the court finds that, under the particular facts presented here, Veoh qualifies for safe

harbor under Section 512(c), the only relief available to plaintiff is the limited injunctive relief

under Section 512(j).12 In this case, before it ever received notice of any claimed infringement,

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 30 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

with respect to a service provider only in one or mor of the following forms:

(i) An order retraining the service provider from providing access

to infringing material or activity residing at a particular online site on the

provider’s system or network.

(ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access

to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider’s system or network

who is engaging in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by

terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified

in the order.

(iii) Such other injunctive relief as the court may consider necessary

to prevent or restrain infringement of copyrighted material specified in the

order of the court at a particular online location, if such relief is the least

burdensome to the service provider among the forms of relief comparably

effective for that purpose.

17 U.S.C. § 512(j)(1)(A).

31

Veoh independently removed all adult content, including video files of plaintiff’s works, and it

no longer allows such material on veoh.com. Thus, any injunctive relief to which Io would be

entitled is moot. Because an opinion as to Veoh’s liability for copyright infringement would be

merely advisory, this court does not reach the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

The ever expanding realm of the Internet provides many new ways for people to connect

with one another. This court appreciates that these new opportunities also present new

challenges to the protection of copyright in the online world; and, the decision rendered here is

confined to the particular combination of facts in this case and is not intended to push the

bounds of the safe harbor so wide that less than scrupulous service providers may claim its

protection. Nevertheless, the court does not find that the DMCA was intended to have Veoh

shoulder the entire burden of policing third-party copyrights on its website (at the cost of losing

its business if it cannot). Rather, the issue is whether Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with

copyright infringement that takes place. The record presented demonstrates that, far from

encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to

limit incidents of infringement on its website and works diligently to keep unauthorized works

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 31 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

32

off its website. In sum, Veoh has met its burden in establishing its entitlement to safe harbor for

the alleged infringements here.

V. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED. The court does not reach the liability issues raised in plaintiff’s

summary judgment motion.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 27, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 32 of 33
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

33

5:06-cv-3926 Notice electronically mailed to: 

Dennis Gill Sperlein legal@titanmedia.com 

Jennifer A. Golinveaux jgolinveaux@winston.com, cfernandez@winston.com,

docketsf@winston.com, mabutler@winston.com 

Matthew Alex Scherb mscherb@winston.com, laegan@winston.com 

Michael S. Elkin melkin@winston.com, rpagliaro@winston.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 117 Filed 08/27/08 Page 33 of 33