## Facts

- YouTube operated an ad-supported video-sharing website where users uploaded videos for public viewing.
- During upload and hosting, YouTube automatically made copies, processed files (including transcoding), and streamed videos to viewers.
- Users agreed by terms of use not to upload copyrighted content without authorization.
- Viacom owned copyrights in television programs and other audiovisual works.
- Users uploaded thousands of unauthorized clips of Viacom’s copyrighted works to YouTube between 2005–2008; Viacom alleged roughly 79,000 infringing clips.
- Viacom sent DMCA takedown notices identifying particular infringing clips; YouTube removed identified content expeditiously.
- Viacom alleged YouTube nonetheless knew infringement was widespread on the service and profited from infringing uploads.
- YouTube moved for summary judgment asserting DMCA § 512(c) safe harbor; Viacom cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and ineligibility for safe harbor.

## Issues

1. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A), does “actual knowledge” or “red flag” awareness require knowledge of specific infringements, or is general awareness of widespread infringement sufficient?
2. Under § 512(c)(1)(B), did YouTube receive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity while also having the right and ability to control such activity, thereby losing safe harbor?
3. Are YouTube’s copying, processing, streaming, and display functions covered as occurring “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” under § 512(c), or are they separate acts outside the safe harbor?

## Decision

- The court granted YouTube’s motion for summary judgment and denied Viacom’s cross-motion.
- The court held YouTube qualified for DMCA § 512(c) safe harbor against Viacom’s direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement claims.
- The court ruled that § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or awareness tied to specific and identifiable infringements, not generalized awareness that infringement occurs on the platform.
- The court found the record did not show YouTube had item-specific knowledge of the infringements sued upon before receiving notices; once notified, YouTube acted expeditiously to remove identified material.
- The court held YouTube’s standard platform operations, including automated copying and processing necessary to host and stream user-uploaded videos, fell within § 512(c)’s scope.

## Legal Principles

- DMCA § 512(c)(1)(A) safe harbor is lost only when the service provider has actual knowledge, or “red flag” awareness, of specific and identifiable infringing material and fails to act expeditiously to remove or disable access upon obtaining such knowledge.
- General awareness that infringement is prevalent on a service does not, without more, establish actual knowledge or red-flag awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A).
- The DMCA’s notice-and-takedown structure places on copyright owners the burden to identify infringing material with sufficient specificity to permit removal.
- A provider’s general ability to remove content, enforce terms of use, or operate and structure the service is not, by itself, the “right and ability to control” that disqualifies the provider under § 512(c)(1)(B).
- Advertising revenue and increased traffic, without proof that infringing material served as a distinct draw coupled with disqualifying control, does not alone defeat § 512(c) protection at summary judgment.
- “By reason of the storage at the direction of a user” under § 512(c) covers technical processes integral to hosting and making user-stored videos available, including automated copying, processing, transmission, and display.
- Section 512(m) confirms that safe harbor eligibility does not depend on a provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringement.

## Conclusion

The court held that YouTube fell within DMCA § 512(c) because safe harbor turns on item-specific knowledge and expeditious removal after notice, not generalized awareness of infringement, and because core hosting functions supporting user-directed storage and streaming remain within the statutory protection.


Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)