Opinion ID: 626721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Repeat Infringer Policy

Text: The class plaintiffs briefly argue that YouTube failed to comply with the requirements of § 512(i), which conditions safe harbor eligibility on the service provider having adopted and reasonably implemented ... a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers. 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A). Specifically, the class plaintiffs allege that YouTube deliberately set up its identification tools to try to avoid identifying infringements of class plaintiffs' works. This allegation rests primarily on the assertion that YouTube permitted only designated partners to gain access to content identification tools by which YouTube would conduct network searches and identify infringing material. [14] Because the class plaintiffs challenge YouTube's deployment of search technology, we must consider their § 512(i) argument in conjunction with § 512(m). As previously noted, § 512(m) provides that safe harbor protection cannot be conditioned on a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i).  17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1) (emphasis added). In other words, the safe harbor expressly disclaims any affirmative monitoring requirementexcept to the extent that such monitoring comprises a standard technical measure within the meaning of § 512(i). Refusing to accommodate or implement a standard technical measure exposes a service provider to liability; refusing to provide access to mechanisms by which a service provider affirmatively monitors its own network has no such result. In this case, the class plaintiffs make no argument that the content identification tools implemented by YouTube constitute standard technical measures, such that YouTube would be exposed to liability under § 512(i). For that reason, YouTube cannot be excluded from the safe harbor by dint of a decision to restrict access to its proprietary search mechanisms.