Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`(Miami Division)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTION No. 1:23-cv-21894-FAM
`WORLD MEDIA ALLIANCE LABEL
`
`INC.
`
` (Florida corporation)
`VERIFIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION UNDER
`
`RULE 59(e) TO ALTER OR AMEND
` Plaintiffs,
`ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
`
` v.
`JURISDICTION, DATED JANUARY 24,
`
`2024
`BELIEVE SAS, aka BELIEVE Co. aka
`BELIEVE aka BELIEVE DIGITAL
` (French company), et al.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) Plaintiff World Media Alliance Label
`
`Inc. (‘WMA”) respectfully files its Motion to alter or amend the Order of dismissal, of January 24,
`
`2024, of the Complaint based on the arguments in the Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) filed by
`
`Defendant Believe SAS, aka Believe Co., aka Believe, aka Believe Digital, a French entity,
`
`registered under a federal statute of the U.S., discussed below.
`
`1. Legal Standard.
`
`A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) should be filed within 28 days
`
`after a judgment or a dispositive court decision. See Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46
`
`(11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Similar to a motion for reconsideration, “[t]he only grounds for
`
`granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
`
`Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Such motions cannot be used
`
`“to relitigate old matters, raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 2 of 19
`
`the entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763
`
`(11th Cir. 2005)).
`
`As a specific procedural and jurisdictional matter, a motion to alter or amend under Rule
`
`59(e) is in fact be filed within 28 days of this Order's issuance. See Samara v. Taylor, 38 F.4th 141,
`
`149 (11th Cir. 2022) (“Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
`
`filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Rule 59(e) allows courts to alter
`
`judgments only where there is newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
`
`(quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural and jurisdictional requirement is met
`
`here. The Order dismissing the case was filed on January 24, 2023. Accordingly, the present
`
`motion is duly filed on February 16, 2024, meaning within 28 days.
`
`2. New Evidence and/or Alleged Manifest Error of Fact.
`
`The present Motion submits new evidence, that came into existence, on information and
`
`belief, on February 6, 2024. On information and belief, on that day Believe got registered in the
`
`DMCA list pursuant to a federal statute (discussed below) and in accordance with two International
`
`Treaties, submitting itself to the jurisdiction of federal courts.
`
`Specifically, with reference to Exhibit 1, as the documentary evidence shows, based on the
`
`entry on Federal Agency’s web portal, on February 6, 2024, Believe got registered under the
`
`DMCA, creating an entry on the government portal managed by an office of the U.S. government.
`
`Ref. Exh. 1. The registration is posted online http://DMCA.copyright.gov/.
`
`Plaintiff WMA requests this honorable Court to take judicial notice, under F.R.E. 201, of
`
`the information that is contained on the official web portal of the U.S. Government, that can be
`
`independently verified and downloaded by any person in the world who has access to the Internet.
`
`Ref. Exh. 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 3 of 19
`
`3. Transcript of Registration through the Library of Congress.
`
`Transcript of Believe’s registration (as of this filing date, February 18, 2024) is downloaded
`
`from the DMCA’s database, under the URL link cited below:
`
`https://dmca.copyright.gov/osp/publish/history.html?search=believe&rid=22fe5f6f8e5b5b70c272
`
`55251ea05494.
`
`The registration, apparently, pursuant to Believe’s application, states as follows:
`
`“DMCA Designated Agent Directory
`Service Provider History:
`Effective: February 6, 2024 to Present (Active)
`Service Provider/Designated Agent Information
`Service Provider:
`Believe
`24 rue Toulouse Lautrec
`Paris, 75017, France
`Designated Agent:
`Claim Administrator
`Believe
`24 rue Toulouse Lautrec, Paris, 75017, France
`Phone: +33 153093400, Email: Believe.takedowns@believe.com
`Status: Active
`Effective: February 6, 2024 to Present
`Alternative names:
`Search:
`Believe Digital
`Believe Direct
`Believe SA
`Believe SAS.”
`
`That registration with DMCA, on information and belief, on February 6, 2024 (ten days
`
`ago) makes a cornerstone difference in this case and, as a matter of law, submits Believe to the
`
`jurisdiction of this Court, as of any U.S. District Court where there are U.S. persons claiming
`
`infringement of their copyright and damages.
`
`As shown in detail below, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) is a part of
`
`the federal statutory law, enacted in 1998 (which amended Copyright Act of 1976). The passage
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 4 of 19
`
`of the DMCA created new U.S.C. sections 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205, 1301–1332; 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 4001, and amended preexisting sections 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 104, 104A, 108, 132, 114, 117, 701.
`
`It was signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998.
`
`That is a part of the federal law since that date. It does not matter which particular U.S.
`
`District Court takes the case controlled by the DMCA, with a sufficient nexus to the aggrieved
`
`party to that district.
`
`Be that otherwise, then all complaints under DMCA would have been required to be filed
`
`in the U.S. District for the District of Columbia, where the Library of Congress is located (ref.
`
`Acting Register of Copyrights Maria Strong and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, Carla D.
`
`Hayden, Librarian of Congress. [FR Doc. 2020–03260]. The formal address of the entity operating
`
`the DMCA is: U.S. Copyright Office, 101 Independence Ave., SE Washington DC, 20559. WMA
`
`is unaware that any plaintiff seeking relief on the basis of the DMCA would be turned away by a
`
`U.S. District Court where it is incorporated or resides, and directed to Washington, D.C.
`
`The above supplemental and persuasive information may also be treated as falling under
`
`the category of a “manifest error of fact”, as so required under Rule 59(e).
`
`In fact, Plaintiffs cited the DMCA in the Complaint and in Footnote 5 of the Opposition to
`
`the Motion to Dismiss: “5. The Complaint properly pleaded: “18. The copyright to the artistic
`
`works in question, held by WMA, are controlled, in addition to contractual terms with the
`
`artists and their musical group, by the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`(DMCA), and the information is located at https://dmca.copyright.gov/.” (Bolding added).
`
`4. Participation of France, Since March 14, 2010, in Both Treaties of Relevance to
`the Claims Asserted in This Case.
`
`Avoiding inundating the Court with the numerous sets of provisions of the multiple Treaties
`
`governed by the WIPO, WMA refers to the list of Articles in the WIPO Performances and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 5 of 19
`
`Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), most relevant here, adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996.
`
`France ratified WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) in 1997 and WIPO Performances and Phonograms
`
`Treaty, in 2009. See Exhs. 2-3.
`
`Both treaties came into force in France from March 14, 2010. Ref. Exhs. 2-3. For example,
`
`Article 4 of the second Treaty states: “National Treatment. (1) Each Contracting Party shall accord
`
`to nationals of other Contracting Parties, as defined in Article 3(2), the treatment it accords to its
`
`own nationals with regard to the exclusive rights specifically granted in this Treaty, and to the right
`
`to equitable remuneration provided for in Article 15 of this Treaty.”1
`
`As to WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), it contains the following:
`
`
`1 The sister Treaty, the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996, has
`the following provisions:
`Article 1:
`Relation to the Berne Convention
`Article 2:
`Scope of Copyright Protection
`Article 3:
`Application of Articles 2 to 6 of the Berne Convention
`Article 4:
`Computer Programs
`Article 5:
`Compilations of Data (Databases)
`Article 6:
`Right of Distribution
`Article 7:
`Right of Rental
`Article 8:
`Right of Communication to the Public
`Article 9:
`Duration of the Protection of Photographic Works
`Article 10:
`Limitations and Exceptions
`Article 11:
`Obligations concerning Technological Measures
`Article 12:
`Obligations concerning Rights Management Information
`Article 13:
`Application in Time
`Article 14:
`Provisions on Enforcement of Rights
`Article 15:
`Assembly
`Article 16:
`International Bureau
`Article 17:
`Eligibility for Becoming Party to the Treaty
`Article 18:
`Rights and Obligations under the Treaty
`Article 19:
`Signature of the Treaty
`Article 20:
`Entry into Force of the Treaty
`Article 21:
`Effective Date of Becoming Party to the Treaty
`Article 22:
`No Reservations to the Treaty
`Article 23:
`Denunciation of the Treaty
`Article 24:
`Languages of the Treaty
`Article 25:
`Depositary
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 6 of 19
`
`CHAPTER I: General Provisions
`
`Article 1: Relation to Other Conventions
`
`Article 2: Definitions
`
`Article 3: Beneficiaries of Protection under this Treaty
`
`Article 4: National Treatment
`CHAPTER II: Rights of Performers
`
`Article 5: Moral Rights of Performers
`
`Article 6: Economic Rights of Performers in their Unfixed Performances
`
`Article 7: Right of Reproduction
`
`Article 8: Right of Distribution
`
`Article 9: Right of Rental
`
`Article 10: Right of Making Available of Fixed Performances
`CHAPTER III: Rights of Producers of Phonograms
`
`Article 11: Right of Reproduction
`
`Article 12: Right of Distribution
`
`Article 13: Right of Rental
`
`Article 14: Right of Making Available of Phonograms
`CHAPTER IV: Common Provisions
`Article 15: Right to Remuneration for Broadcasting and Communication to the
`Public
`Article 16: Limitations and Exceptions
`
`Article 17: Term of Protection
`
`Article 18: Obligations concerning Technological Measures
`
`Article 19: Obligations concerning Rights Management Information
`
`Article 20: Formalities
`
`Article 21: Reservations
`
`Article 22: Application in Time
`
`Article 23: Provisions on Enforcement of Rights
`
`CHAPTER V: Administrative and Final Clauses
`
`Article 24: Assembly
`
`Article 25: International Bureau
`
`Article 26: Eligibility for Becoming Party to the Treaty
`
`Article 27: Rights and Obligations under the Treaty
`
`Article 28: Signature of the Treaty
`
`Article 29: Entry into Force of the Treaty
`
`Article 30: Effective Date of Becoming Party to the Treaty
`
`Article 31: Denunciation of the Treaty
`
`Article 32: Languages of the Treaty
`
`Article 33: Depositary
`
`5. Utmost Relevance of the DMCA as part of Federal Statutory Law, and Its
`Operation as It Concerns Believe, of France, at Present Time.
`
`
`The DMCA becoming in 1998 the U.S. copyright law included the USA entering two
`
`treaties of the WIPO, relevant here. As mentioned above, the WCT is a special agreement under
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 7 of 19
`
`the Berne Convention which deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors in
`
`the digital environment. Furthermore, the WCT mentions two subject matters to be protected by
`
`copyright, e.g., compilations of data or other material ("databases"). That Treaty also grants: (i)
`
`the right of distribution; (ii) the right of rental; and (iii) a broader right of communication to the
`
`public. The DMCA criminalized production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services
`
`intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as
`
`digital rights management). The DMCA criminalized the act of circumventing access control,
`
`whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightened
`
`the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.
`
`Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law
`
`by President Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA significantly amended Title 17 of the U.S.
`
`Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services
`
`for copyright infringement by their users.
`
`In WMA’s opinion, respectfully, the Court’s not addressing the DMCA’s effect, as a part of
`
`federal law, in this case rises to a manifest error of fact, triggering misapplication of the law,
`
`namely not addressing the federal law that came with the DMCA.2
`
`Again, the DMCA is a part of the federal law, and it has had its basis as part of the United
`
`States' commitment to comply with two treaties sponsored by the WIPO in 1996. Specifically, the
`
`WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty operated to normalize the copyright protections for
`
`performed works as uniformly for member states. Lawmakers opted to create a rulemaking
`
`
`2 The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and
`indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was
`adopted by the European Union in 2000 and included France. The Information Society Directive
`2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU. That, again, included France.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 8 of 19
`
`mechanism through the United States Copyright Office to review the state of copyrights and fair
`
`use to make limited classes of allowance for fair use which would be considered lawful means of
`
`using circumvention technology.
`
`Furthermore, to the best of WMA’s knowledge, none of the prior lawsuits against Believe
`
`has been dismissed based on lack of federal jurisdiction. Those cases include: Art Records, LLC
`
`v. Youtube, LLC et al (D.Cent.Cal., Western Div., Los Angeles), case #: 2:22-cv-05179-DSF-KS;
`
`SA Music, LLC et al v. Apple, Inc. et al (D.Cent.Cal., Western Div., Los Angeles), case #: 2:19-cv-
`
`04073-JFW-RAO.
`
`In a representative document posted on the Internet, called Universal Registration
`
`Document, Believe also discusses the case against it in Southern District of New York, still pending
`
`(the Round Hill case). That case was cited in WMA’s Complaint, at p. 2. In its own Universal
`
`Registration Document, Believe stated: “In July 2020, proceedings were brought against certain
`
`Group companies before a federal court of the State of New York by music publishing companies
`
`Round Hill Music LLP and Round Hill Music LP… Round Hill claims that the Group should pay
`
`the maximum amount of statutory damages under applicable U.S. law, i.e. US$150,000 per work,
`
`for a total of US$32,850,000.” Believe represents that the case is being to be close to settlement,
`
`that has not been reached. Ibid, p. 232. WMA submits that this Court should follow the path of
`
`that case, cited in the Complaint, that is active at this time. However, regrettably, the Order
`
`Memorandum of January 24, 2024, did not address that precedent in a sister U.S. District Court
`
`for the Southern District of New York.
`
`6. Documentation of the WMA Claims Filed with Believe and Discarded or Ignored
`by Believe
`
`
`WMA also submits that the Court, respectfully, did not consider or insufficiently addressed
`
`4 exhibits filed with the Opposition, on November 27, 2023, Dkt numbers 29-2, 29-3, 29-4, 29-5.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 9 of 19
`
`Those documents prove that WMA wrote and downloaded official claims concerning Believe on
`
`numerous occasions.
`
`In fact, as shown in the Opposition, from January 2021 to July 2023, WMA sent to Believe
`
`multiple legal notices, including cease, copyright violation notices, and various email requests to
`
`the company Believe YouTube and all digital platforms, including YouTube. All digital platforms,
`
`including Amazon, Spotify, and iTunes, have removed the materials from all resources to which
`
`WMA holds exclusive rights, demanding to delete the contested video materials. Ref.
`
`(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuIzwjfti6l3pQfpvnb8FMg)
`
`Despite all efforts undertaken by WMA, Believe refused to remove material WMA owns,
`
`instead sending automated rebuttals that it holds copyright, without any explanations or
`
`substantively responding to the demands. With all infringements and requests made regarding
`
`YouTube, a Florida corporation's rights were and are being violated, despite the direct contact and
`
`communications between WMA and Believe.
`
`As of this date, Believe has published on the YouTube channel, 221 contested videos, and
`
`81 videos were used as material with exclusive rights by WMA. Believe has provided no
`
`documents or made any efforts to settle these violations out of court. Believe bears full legal
`
`responsibility under U.S. law, knowing it has been infringing upon the corporation's rights in
`
`Florida, aiming for financial gain. This assertion is made based on multiple grounds.3
`
`
`3 "Notifications of Claimed Infringement
`When a copyright owner's work is being infringed on or through a service provider's service, the
`copyright owner may send a notification of claimed infringement (often referred to as a "takedown
`notice") to the service provider's designated agent. For takedown notices to be legally effective,
`they must be provided to a service provider's designated agent in writing and include substantially
`the following:
`A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
`exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 10 of 19
`
`Believe violated U.S. law and in this case jurisdiction over Believe should be asserted. See
`
`Statute "17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). Among other things, upon receipt of a complaint takedown
`
`notice, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove or restrict access. This material
`
`is claimed to be the subject of the claimed infringing activity. If a service provider fails to do so,
`
`it may lose its safe harbor protection and be subject to an infringement suit. Copyright
`
`infringement, under U.S. law, can have both civil and criminal penalties.
`
`In general, civil copyright infringement penalties include:
`
`* Paying actual damages or "statutory" damages of at least $750 and not more than $30,000
`
`per work infringed
`
`* The copyright owner can sue in civil court, seeking an injunction to prohibit the
`
`defendant's further unauthorized use."
`
`Upon official notification through the YouTube infringement form regarding WMA's rights
`
`violation, Believe contested rights for 81 videos, therefore, making it mandatory for it to participate
`
`in federal court proceedings in the USA under penalty of law. On its end, WMA used all options
`
`to solve these unlawful activities of Believe. Believe was fully aware of the matter and violations
`
`affecting a Florida corporation and still has not provided, even as of today, any documents or has
`
`taken any steps to solve the arguments.
`
`When Believe published the contested videos, it stated that those were available globally.
`
`Believe could have restricted access by country, state, or city, but it chose not to do so. That
`
`indicates a deliberate selection of WMA and its business in Florida because its significant
`
`
`Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if a single notification
`covers multiple copyrighted works at a single online site, a representative list of such works.
`Identification of the material claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity,
`which is to be removed or accessed, which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient
`to permit the service provider to locate the material…"
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 11 of 19
`
`population comprises at least 250,000 Russian-speaking residents and citizens, who are interested
`
`in those videos, with songs primarily in Russian language. Considering the material's high
`
`popularity, at least 25%—or fewer than 50,000 individuals in the Russian diaspora—had the
`
`opportunity to view, comment on, and share these videos on social networks.
`
`Believe aimed to profit from material for which WMA holds exclusive rights. Upon
`
`publishing the videos, Believe granted permission to Google and YouTube to use advertising
`
`material before, during, and after the videos. Additionally, by contractually using YouTube's
`
`content ID system, Believe asserted its rights to receive money for all those videos published on
`
`YouTube worldwide. This created conflicts among rights holders, overlaps, disputes, and
`
`unlawfully requested removals from official rights holders' channels.
`
`Despite repeatedly submitting all documents and demands made, YouTube refused to
`
`remove the contested videos, also violating the DMCA. Furthermore, YouTube allows the
`
`reinstatement of videos where 221 were published and 81 were deleted. Believe restored five
`
`videos and did not utilize the option to close the channel name, under the policy in case of 3 strikes.
`
`The channel remains active, continues to publish content and generate revenue.
`
`As a factual updated after January 24, 2024, currently, Believe continues to publish 146
`
`videos and two for which the corporation holds exclusive rights:
`
`- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCwcf9KN3s8
`
`- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WQxHKJePZA
`
`Registration at Copyright Office of the Library of Congress not Given Effect.
`
`8.
`
`Believe further reinstated five videos and others where WMA holds rights, it is evident that
`
`the videos are viewable in Florida. Advertising is also being utilized. According to the information
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 12 of 19
`
`WMA has provided, it is clearly stated that Believe is using material owned by WMA on YouTube,
`
`accessible for viewing in the United States, Florida, and worldwide.
`
`The information WMA submitted shows that Believe uses material owned by WMA on
`
`YouTube, in the USA, specifically in Florida. Doing so for several years, not providing documents
`
`for confirmation of rights.
`
`WMA also assumes, even though not stated in the ruling, that the Court considered
`
`documents from Russian courts. However, Believe has been trying to misuse Russian proceedings,
`
`knowing the Russian courts hold no weight in US Courts’ proceedings at this time, after the warfare
`
`started against Ukraine since February 24, 2022. WMA has never been summonsed from, or
`
`involved, in Russian courts cases and has engaged in no activities in those courts. Without
`
`summonses, no res judicata, collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion applies. U.S. District Court’s
`
`relying on recent Russian courts’ decisions can create a precedent, where any international
`
`company can illegally obtain Russian court decisions, use any material to defeat the rights
`
`registered in the copyright office of Congress and bear no legal responsibility.
`
`It is noteworthy that on its part, YouTube did not take any steps even though Believe
`
`violated a large number of YouTube rules. Namely, Believe has been illegally monetizing audio
`
`and video materials for over two years, violating Google's rules on more than 81 videos, of which
`
`YouTube collects about 55% of the royalties. That is contrary to YouTube’s Rules, that are
`
`summarized in a Footnote below.4
`
`
`4 Provisions from YouTube Rules are reproduced below.
`§ Responsibilities of a content manager and access to functions
`§ What happens if you violate YouTube policies
`§ Content managers who do not comply with YouTube's policies may receive formal warnings if
`YouTube determines that their misuse of the CMS is negligent, intentional, or harmful. In addition,
`YouTube may remove any content posted or delivered that violates YouTube's terms or policies.
`Legal notices may affect your company's right to use certain YouTube programs and CMS features,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 13 of 19
`
`It is unfair and not right that the U.S. District Court allows a foreign company, registered
`
`under the DMCA in Washington, D.C., to illegally use videos on YouTube, including for the
`
`audience in the U.S. and particularly in Florida. To update the facts, more than 81 of the 221
`
`videos subject to infringement have already been deleted, but the remainder is not.
`
`https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuIzwjfti6l3pQfpvnb8FMg
`
`
`so you must have adequate internal controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to your
`systems and to comply with all YouTube policies, guidelines, and requirements.
`§ loss of access to CMS functions
`§ In addition to formal warnings, partners who abuse or misuse CMS features may lose access to
`those or other related features. It is usually temporary and lasts for a certain period. We may also
`temporarily restrict your access to CMS features to prevent imminent damage to the content
`management ecosystem. The length of time a partner must wait before restoring access to a feature
`depends on several factors, such as the severity of the breach, the reason why it occurred, the
`impact on the partner's business, and the partner's breach history. Sometimes, we may deem it
`appropriate to lose certain features permanently. Your Account Manager will receive specific
`details and next steps. You can contact Creator Support for more information if you don't have an
`affiliate manager.
`§ Your responsibilities as a content manager
`§ YouTube's Content Management System (CMS) is a robust set of tools that, if misused, can harm
`the YouTube ecosystem. Content Managers are responsible for ensuring that all content posted
`and delivered (e.g., channels, videos, album art tracks, asset metadata, Content ID links, etc.)
`complies with all YouTube policies and guidelines, including our Terms of Service. Community
`rules, monetization. Content manager requirements and policies.
`§ Repeated and flagrant violations
`§ We take this policy very seriously. Partners who repeatedly or egregiously violate our content
`guidelines will be subject to more severe penalties. These penalties may include loss of access to
`additional features of the CMS, loss of specific features for extended periods, complete loss of
`access to the CMS, and termination of any contracts with YouTube.
`§ Sometimes, we may issue a "final warning" to comply with our policies. Content managers who
`receive the official final warning will lose access to most of their CMS features until they pass an
`abuse review sometime next year. Any additional violations of our content management policies
`in the next year and failure to request and complete abuse reviews will place their contracts at risk
`of termination.
`§ Ownership of multiple content owners
`§ Please note that if you own a majority stake in multiple content managers on YouTube, violations
`committed against one content manager may result in penalties for all content managers under
`your Ownership.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 14 of 19
`
`See the applicable YouTube Rules in another Footnote.5 WMA tries to limit the Court’s
`
`exposure to technical information in the domain of IP operated online.
`
`9. WMA’s Rights under 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5, and Treaties, Should Be Redressed in U.S.
`District Court.
`
`Again, as cited in the Complaint, the Court has the jurisdiction and the power to conclude
`
`that the Florida corporation’s rights have been in fact violated and enforce those rights according
`
`to 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5. WMA’s complaint properly indicated that subject matter of the lawsuit is
`
`property rights/copyrights, seeking to terminate copyright infringement and award damages. A
`
`copyright infringer may be subject to civil remedies. The copyright holder is entitled to seek
`
`monetary damages and profits, attorneys' fees, and an injunction enforceable in a U.S. District
`
`Court.
`
`On its end Believe, in the motion papers accompanying MTD, was obligated to show the
`
`certificates. The District Court did not address, regrettably, the fact that WMA has sent to Believe
`
`numerous communications that were titled as or could be interpreted as “cease and desist” letters.6
`
`
`5 § When a channel receives a copyright strike, penalties are applied at the channel level.
`Partners should avoid accumulating copyright notices on the channels they manage. Otherwise,
`their content manager will be subject to penalties in addition to the existing channel removal
`rules. Penalties for partner strikes limit access to features. This affects both the content owner
`and related content owners.
`§ Policy Requirements:
`§ If a partner receives 10 copyright strikes on managed channels within 90 days, the partner is
`subject to further review, the results of which may include loss of the ability to link channels,
`loss of the ability to upload videos, and termination—partnership agreements. After 90 days,
`copyright notices will expire,...removed from the channel owner's total income and content.
`YouTube also reserves the right to evaluate and correct violations at any time in its sole
`discretion.
`6 For example, the Complaint alleged, with specificity: “41. WMA’s warning and demand letters
`further stated: “Your failure to act expeditiously to remove, disable access to the infringing material
`located at the Infringing URLs upon notification of claimed infringement…as a result of us
`emailing you at the email address of your Designated Copyright Agent may result in liability for
`copyright infringement, the potential statutory damages for which can be as high as $250,000 (Two
`Hundred and Fifty Thousand US Dollars) per work infringed, as per 17 U.S.C. 504, as well as
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-21894-FAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2024 Page 15 of 19
`
`Therefore, WMA correctly argued it is unlawful for a large organization such as Believe to merely
`
`perpetuate a sort of cyber piracy, misusing or confiscating the copyright held by WMA.7
`
`10. The Court Respectfully Made an Error not Giving Weight to Affidavit from WMA’s
`President not Contradicted by Any Affidavits on Behalf of Believe.
`
`WMA also respectfully argues that this Court did not consider the fact that Believe did not
`
`submit any Affidavit that was required to defeat jurisdiction, supported by the Affidavit filed on
`
`November 27, 2023, by WMA’s president. In addressing whether personal jurisdiction over a
`
`nonresident defendant exists, “[t]he district court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as
`
`true, to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits.” Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d
`
`1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F.2d 489, 492 (11th Cir. 1988)).
`
`“[W]here the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's affidavits conflict, the district court must
`
`construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Id.
`
`However, a District Court must conduct a two-part inquiry when deciding the issue of
`
`personal jurisdiction. Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir. 1996). First, the
`
`
`attorney's fees. In present instance, your Service is infringing on - either directly or contributorily
`- the Copyright Owner's rights in thirty-six (36) independent copyrighted Works, bringing a
`potential maximum claim of damages against you up to $9,000,000 USD (Nine Million United
`States Dollars), not including attorney's fees.”
`
` 7
`
` WMA’s rights were pleaded in the Complaint: “The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office maintains
`WMA’s registration a