眾律國際法律事務所

眾律國際法律事務所 專利工程師暨法務專員林春宏

美國柏克萊加州大學 分子生物學士

美國柏克萊加州大學 資訊管理 碩士

加拿大英屬哥倫比亞大學 法律博士

2012-12-13

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

In 2007, Viacom filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against YouTube, a video sharing website owned by Google. Viacom alleged that YouTube had engaged in copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view copyrighted materials owned by Viacom. In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Viacom specifically accused that the “defendants actively engage in, promote and induce this infringement. YouTube itself publicly performs the infringing videos on the YouTube site and other websites. Thus, YouTube does not simply enable massive infringement by its users. It is YouTube that knowingly reproduces and publicly performs the copyrighted works uploaded to its site.”

Furthermore, Viacom sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages in the civil action. More specifically, Viacom attempted to “seek a declaration that Defendants’ conduct willfully infringes Plaintiffs’ copyrights, a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to employ reasonable methodologies to prevent or limit infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, and statutory damages for Defendants’ past and present willful infringement, or actual damages plus profits, of at least one billion dollars.”

During the pre-trial discovery phase, Viacom asked the court to order YouTube to hand over data regarding the viewing habits of their users.   Privacy advocates expressed concerns about violating privacy rights of YouTube users.   The judge dismissed the privacy concerns and required YouTube to hand over user data. In 2010, the judge ruled in favor of YouTube in a motion for summary judgment, holding that YouTube was protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because YouTube complied with the take-down notice issued by Viacom, as specified by the DMCA. In 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the summary judgment of the district court, holding that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website" and therefore the case was remanded to the district court.

Reference:

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf