Viacom vs. Google - Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

[Guest LAW_*]

Google, the owners of YouTube, claimed in a court briefing today that the one billion dollar lawsuit against the company "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information."

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.,

COMEDY PARTNERS,

COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC.,

PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION,

And BLACK ENTERTAINMENT

TELEVISION LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and

GOOGLE INC.

Defendants.

 

Viacom’s lawsuit challenges the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube. Congress recognized that such services could not and would not exist if they faced liability for copyright infringement based on materials users uploaded to their services. It chose to immunize these services from copyright liability provided they are properly responsive to notices of alleged infringement from content owners.

 

Looking at the online world today, there is no question that Congress made the correct policy choice. Legitimate services like YouTube provide the world with free and authorized access to extraordinary libraries of information that would not be available without the DMCA -- information created by users who have every right to share it. YouTube fulfills Congress’s vision for the DMCA. YouTube also fulfills its end of the DMCA bargain, and indeed goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works. By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.

 

Defendants YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC and Google Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby answer Plaintiffs’ Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television LLC (all collectively, “Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages and Demand for Jury Trial (the “First Amended Complaint”) as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1. Defendants admit that the internet has had a significant impact on the way in which Americans inform and entertain themselves. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint, in part because such allegations are not simple, concise and direct averments as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), and on that basis Defendants deny such allegations.

 

2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint.

 

3. Defendants admit that the website located at www.youtube.com is a forum for users to share their own original “user generated” video content. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to confirm that Dow Jones reported the information averred in paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint, and therefore deny it. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint.

 

TWELFTH DEFENSE (SUBSTANTIAL NON-INFRINGING USE)

 

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part based on the doctrine of substantial noninfringing use, although Defendants submit Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the doctrine’s inapplicability.

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request the following relief:

 

1. A judgment in favor of Defendants denying Plaintiffs all relief requested in their First Amended Complaint in this action and dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint with prejudice;

 

2. That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and

 

3. That the Court award Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(, Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

 

Date: May 23, 2008

 

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Richard Ben-Veniste

Andrew H. Schapiro

A. John P. Mancini

Matthew D. Ingber

MAYER BROWN LLP

1675 Broadway

New York, NY 10019

(212) 506-2500

David H. Kramer*

Maura L. Rees*

Michael H. Rubin*

Bart E. Volkmer*

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

(650) 493-9300

(*admitted pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, Inc.,

YouTube, LLC and Google Inc.