`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page1 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT§5mf
`
`V
`
`,
`
`. 0
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW C
`
`I
`
`E
`
`,
`
`COUNTRY MUSIC TELEVISION, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`AND DAMGES -r.,.,m«..- . u........,.r.i.. ,......
`4
`
`
`[E
`
`
`......._..—..
`Lab 13/ LL.
`
`
`
`) ) f
`
`‘
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`COMEDY PARTNERS,
`
`PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION,
`and BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION
`
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V’
`
`YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Viacom International Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television,
`
`Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television LLC (collectively,
`
`“P1aintiffs”), by and for their Complaint against Defendants YouTube, Inc. and YouTube,
`
`LLC (collectively, “YouTube”), and Google Inc. (“Google”) (all collectively, “Defendants”),
`
`aver as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Over the past decade, the emergence of broadband networks, Internet protocol
`
`and inexpensive wireless networks has revolutionized the way Americans inform and
`
`entertain themselves. Millions have seized the opportunities digital technology provides to
`
`obtain creative works and to express themselves creatively. Entrepreneurs have made
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page2of 27
`
`fortunes providing the networks,
`
`the tools and the creative works that have fueled this
`
`revolution. But these same innovations have also been misused to fuel an explosion of
`
`copyright
`
`infringement by exploiting the inexpensive duplication and distribution made
`
`possible by digital technology. Some entities, rather than taking the lawful path of building
`
`businesses that respect intellectual property rights on the Internet, have sought their fortunes
`
`by brazenly exploiting the infringing potential of digital technology.
`
`2.
`
`YouTube is one such entity. YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully
`
`infringe copyrights on a huge scale, depriving writers, composers and performers of the
`
`rewards they are owed for effort and innovation, reducing the incentives of America’s
`
`creative industries, and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well. Using the
`
`leverage of the Internet, YouTube appropriates the value of creative content on a massive
`
`scale for YouTube’s benefit without payment or license. YouTube’s brazen disregard of the
`
`intellectual property laws fundamentally threatens not just Plaintiffs, but
`
`the economic
`
`underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.
`
`3.
`
`YouTube’s website purports to be a forum for users to share their own
`
`original “user generated” video content.
`
`In reality, however, a vast amount of that content
`
`consists of infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, including such popular (and
`
`obviously copyrighted)
`
`television programming and motion pictures as “SpongeBob
`
`SquarePants,” “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” “The Colbert Report,” “South Park,”
`
`“Ren & Stimpy,” “MTV Unplugged,” “An Inconvenient Truth,” “Mean Girls,” and many
`
`others. Unauthorized copies of these and other copyrighted works are posted daily on
`
`YouTube and each is viewed tens of thousands of times. As Dow Jones reported, “[i]t’s no
`
`secret that millions of Internet users every day watch copyright-infringing video clips on
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page3of 27
`
`YouTube.” Market Watch by Dow Jones, October 20, 2006.
`
`In fact, Plaintiffs have
`
`identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of their copyrighted programming on
`
`YouTube that had been viewed an astounding 1.5 billion times. And that is only a small
`
`fraction of the content on YouTube that infringes Plaintiffs’ copyrights, because as described
`
`below, YouTube prevents copyright owners from finding on the YouTube site all of the
`
`infringing works from which YouTube profits.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants know and intend that a substantial amount of the content on the
`
`YouTube site consists of unlicensed infringing copies of copyrighted works and have done
`
`little or nothing to prevent this massive infringement. To the contrary, the availability on the
`
`YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of Plaintiffs and others is the
`
`cornerstone of Defendants’ business plan. YouTube deliberately built up a library of
`
`infringing works to draw traffic to the YouTube site, enabling it to gain a commanding
`
`market share, earn significant revenues, and increase its enterprise value.
`
`6.
`
`YouTube has deliberately chosen not to take reasonable precautions to deter
`
`the rampant infringement on its site. Because YouTube directly profits from the availability
`
`of popular infringing works on its site,
`
`it has decided to shift the burden entirely onto
`
`copyright owners to monitor the YouTube site on a daily or hourly basis to detect infringing
`
`videos and send notices to YouTube demanding that it “take down” the infringing works.
`
`In
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page4of 27
`
`the meantime, YouTube profits handsomely from the presence of the infringing works on its
`
`site. And even after it receives a notice from a copyright owner, in many instances the very
`
`same infringing video remains on YouTube because it was uploaded by at least one other
`
`user, or appears on YouTube again within hours of its removal. YouTube has deliberately
`
`chosen this approach because it allows YouTube to profit from infringement while leaving
`
`copyright owners insufficient means to prevent it.
`
`7.
`
`Moreover, YouTube has deliberately withheld the application of available
`
`copyright protection measures in order to coerce rights holders to grant it licenses on
`
`favorable terms. YouTube’s chief executive and cofounder Chad Hurley was quoted in the
`
`New York Times on February 3, 2007, as saying that YouTube has agreed to use filtering
`
`technology “to identify and possibly remove copyrighted material,” but only after YouTube
`
`obtains a license from the copyright owner. Geraldine Fabrikant & Saul Hansell, Viacom
`
`Tells YouTube: Hands Ofi’, N.Y. Times, Feb. 3, 2007, at C1. Those who refuse to be coerced
`
`are subjected to continuing infringement.
`
`Id.; see also Saul Hansell, A Bet That Media
`
`Companies Will Want to Share Ad Revenue, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2006, at C1.
`
`8.
`
`YouTube has also implemented features that prevent copyright owners from
`
`finding infringing videos by searching the YouTube site. YouTube thereby hinders
`
`Plaintiffs’ attempts to locate infringing videos to protect their rights. At the same time,
`
`YouTube allows its users to make the hidden videos available to others through other
`
`YouTube features like the “embed,” “share,” and “friends” functions.
`
`In this way, YouTube
`
`continues to profit from the infringement, while hindering Plaintiffs from preventing it.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Google recently purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion, generating
`
`extraordinary riches for YouTube’s founders and investors.
`
`In recognition of the undeniable
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 5 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page5of 27
`
`reality of massive infringement on the YouTube site, Google has reportedly issued
`
`substantial equity and entered into expensive licenses with certain providers of copyrighted
`
`content.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants’ infringement has harmed and continues to harm the interests of
`
`authors, songwriters, directors, producers, performers, and many other creators.
`
`If left
`
`unchecked, rampant infringement will gravely undermine Plaintiffs and other companies that
`
`generate creative works, and will threaten the livelihoods of those who work in and depend
`
`upon these companies. Plaintiffs therefore have no choice but to seek immediate redress.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`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.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright
`
`infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over all claims pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants.
`
`Google does
`
`continuous and systematic business in New York and this District.
`
`It maintains an office and
`
`employs personnel in New York and this District, and is thus physically present in the state.
`
`See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301. On information and belief, YouTube also does continuous and
`
`systematic business in New York and in this District. See id. All Defendants have also
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 6 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page6of 27
`
`transacted business within New York and contracted to supply goods or services in New
`
`York in connection with the matters giving rise to this suit. See id. § 302(a)(1). Defendants
`
`have also committed infringing acts outside of New York causing injury to Plaintiffs in New
`
`York, and Defendants regularly do or solicit business in New York, and/or derive substantial
`
`revenue from goods used or services rendered in New York, and/or expect or reasonably
`
`should expect their infringing conduct to have consequences in New York and derive
`
`substantial revenue from interstate commerce. See id. § 302(a)(3).
`
`In addition, Plaintiffs
`
`Viacom International Inc. and Comedy Partners have their principal places of business in
`
`New York and in this District, and have been injured in New York by Defendants’ infringing
`
`conduct.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ l39l(b), (c) and
`
`1400(a).
`
`PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESSES
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”), one of the world’s leading
`
`creators of programming and content across all media platforms, is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Comedy Partners, an affiliate of Viacom,
`
`is a general partnership
`
`formed in New York with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Country Music Television,
`
`Inc., an affiliate of Viacom,
`
`is a
`
`Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation, an affiliate of Viacom,
`
`is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 7 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page7of 27
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Black Entertainment Television LLC, an affiliate of Viacom,
`
`is a
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs are among the world’s preeminent creators, producers and
`
`distributors of copyrighted television programming, motion pictures, short form audiovisual
`
`works and other entertainment programming, who have invested and continue to invest many
`
`millions of dollars annually to create and disseminate these works because the Copyright Act
`
`protects their economic incentive to do so and tens of millions of consumers desire to
`
`experience the works. Plaintiffs distribute and publicly perform those works, and/or license
`
`them for distribution and/or public performance, by telecast on cable and satellite television
`
`systems, in motion picture theaters, on DVD and other video formats, through their own
`
`websites and various authorized intemet distribution channels, and over cell phones and other
`
`portable devices, among other ways. Plaintiffs’ television channels and trademarks include
`
`MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Logo, MTV2, MTV Tres, Nick at Nite, Noggin,
`
`TV Land, CMT, mtvU, Nickelodeon, The N, and BET. Plaintiffs’ motion picture labels
`
`include Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Paramount Vantage, MTV Films,
`
`and
`
`Nickelodeon Films.
`
`21.
`
`Examples of legitimate licensed channels for the distribution of Plaintiffs’
`
`programs include Apple’s iTunes Music Store, which sells secure digital downloads of
`
`television shows from several of Plaintiffs’
`
`television networks; Joost, an advertising-
`
`supported, lnternet-based television service; and numerous others that currently exist or are
`
`just emerging. The shows distributed through these licensed on-line distribution charmels
`
`include “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” “The Colbert Report,” and “South Park” from
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 8 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page8of 27
`
`Comedy Central; “SpongeBob SquarePants,” and “Dora the Explorer,” among others, from
`
`Nickelodeon; and “Beavis and Butthead,” “Laguna Beach,” and “Jackass,” among others,
`
`from MTV.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs also offer streaming video clips of many of their most popular
`
`television
`
`shows
`
`and
`
`other works
`
`through
`
`their
`
`own websites,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`www.comedycentral.com. Plaintiffs derive advertising revenue and other benefits from the
`
`Internet traffic generated by the availability of these video clips on their websites.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants’ conduct directly and secondarily infringes the copyrights in
`
`works owned by or exclusively licensed to Plaintiffs that are the subject of valid Certificates
`
`of Copyright Registration from the Register of Copyrights, including but not limited to those
`
`listed on Exhibit A attached to this Complaint.
`
`DEFENDANTS AND THE INFRINGING YOUTUBE SERVICE
`
`24.
`
`Defendant YouTube, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in San Bruno, California.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant YouTube, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in San Bruno, California. On information and belief, YouTube,
`
`LLC is the successor in interest of YouTube, Inc. YouTube, Inc. and YouTube, LLC are
`
`referred to collectively herein as “YouTube.”
`
`26.
`
`YouTube is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Defendant Google
`
`Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
`
`California, and a place of business in the State of New York and this District. Pursuant to a
`
`transaction that was publicly announced on October 9, 2006, and closed on November 13,
`
`2006, Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion.
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 9 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103—LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page9of 27
`
`27.
`
`Defendants
`
`operate
`
`a website
`
`called
`
`“YouTube,”
`
`located
`
`at
`
`www.youtube.com, one of the most prominent and popular websites on the Internet. The
`
`recent $1.65 billion acquisition price for YouTube reflects the website’s enormous
`
`popularity. YouTube’s value, however, is built largely on the unauthorized appropriation
`
`and exploitation of copyrighted works belonging to others, especially Plaintiffs. As a result,
`
`a large part of YouTube’s Value is directly attributable to the availability of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted works on YouTube’s website.
`
`28.
`
`Google exercises substantial and continuing control over the continuing acts
`
`of YouTube that form the subject matter of this complaint. Google’s press release at the time
`
`of the closing of the $1.65 billion acquisition announced that YouTube would stay “on the
`
`same course” and, on information and belief, Google determined to have YouTube continue
`
`to withhold measures to prevent the massive copyright infringement known to be taking
`
`place on the site. Google has also recently launched a feature on Google’s own website
`
`whereby a search for videos returns thumbnails and results for videos on YouTube, thereby
`
`participating in, inducing, contributing to, and profiting from the infringement on YouTube.
`
`Additional massive damages to plaintiffs and others have been caused by Google’s
`
`preservation and backing of YouTube’s infringing business model.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`29.
`
`Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the
`
`“Copyright Act”), Plaintiffs have the distinct, severable, and exclusive rights to, among other
`
`things, reproduce, publicly perform, and publicly display their copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 106(1), (4), (5)-
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 10 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page10 of 27
`
`30.
`
`YouTube is a self-described “consumer media company” that “deliver[s]
`
`entertaining, authentic and informative videos across the Internet.” YouTube Dec. 15, 2005
`
`Press
`
`Release
`
`(available
`
`at
`
`http://wvvw.youtube.com/press_room_entry?entry=
`
`OcN9xXYar1g). Defendants encourage individuals to upload videos to the YouTube site,
`
`where YouTube makes them available for immediate viewing by members of the public free
`
`of charge. Although YouTube touts itself as a service for sharing home videos, the well-
`
`known reality of YouTube’s business is far different. YouTube has filled its library with
`
`entire episodes and movies and significant segments of popular copyrighted programming
`
`from Plaintiffs and other copyright owners, that neither YouTube nor the users who submit
`
`the works are licensed to use in this manner. Because YouTube users contribute pirated
`
`copyrighted works to YouTube by the thousands, including those owned by Plaintiffs, the
`
`videos “deliver[ed]” by YouTube include a vast unauthorized collection of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted audiovisual works.
`
`31.
`
`Though the videos available on YouTube are uploaded by users in the first
`
`instance, upon upload the videos become part of the YouTube library for performance and
`
`display on YouTube’s own website, which Defendants control and directly profit from.
`
`When a user uploads a video, YouTube copies the video in its own software format, adds it
`
`to its own servers, and makes it available for viewing on its own website. A user who wants
`
`to view a video goes to the YouTube site by typing wvvw.youtube.com into the user’s web
`
`browser, enters search terms into a Search and indexing function provided by YouTube for
`
`this purpose on its site, and receives a list of thumbnails of videos in the YouTube library
`
`matching those terms. YouTube creates the thumbnails, which are individual frames from
`
`videos in its library — including infringing videos — for the purpose of helping users find what
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 11 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page11 of 27
`
`they are searching for. For example, users looking for Plaintiffs’ popular works might type
`
`in search terms such as “MTV,” “Stephen Colbert,” “Beavis and Butthead,” or “SpongeBob.”
`
`YouTube then returns a list with thumbnails of matching videos in its library, and the user
`
`can select and view a video from the list of matches by clicking on the thumbnail created and
`
`supplied by YouTube for this purpose. YouTube then publicly performs the chosen video by
`
`sending streaming video content from YouTube’s servers to the user’s computer, where it
`
`can be viewed by the user. During the entire experience, YouTube prominently displays its
`
`logo, user interface, and advertising to the user. Thus, the YouTube conduct that forms the
`
`basis of this Complaint is not simply providing storage space, conduits, or other facilities to
`
`users who create their own websites with infringing materials. To the contrary, YouTube
`
`itself commits the infringing duplication, public performance, and public display of
`
`Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, and that infringement occurs on YouTube’s own website,
`
`which is operated and controlled by Defendants, not users.
`
`32.
`
`YouTube also allows any person to “embed” any Video available in the
`
`YouTube library into another website (such as a blog, MySpace page, or any other page on
`
`the web where the user can post material). To do this, the user simply copies the “embed”
`
`code, which YouTube supplies for each video in its library, and then pastes that code into the
`
`other website, where the embedded video will appear as a television-shaped picture with the
`
`YouTube logo prominently displayed and a triangular icon that any user can click to play the
`
`video. When a user clicks the play icon, the embedded video plays within the context of the
`
`host website, but it is actually YouTube, not the host site, that publicly performs the video by
`
`transmitting the streaming video content from YouTube’s own servers to the viewer’s
`
`computer.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 12 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page12 of 27
`
`33.
`
`YouTube also makes it possible for a user to share an embedded video by
`
`clicking the word “share” that is displayed with the video. After clicking “share,” the user is
`
`taken to a location on YouTube’s own website where there is a form for entering the email
`
`addresses of persons to share the video with. YouTube then sends an email to each person
`
`listed in that form, with a link that takes the recipient to YouTube’s own site to View the
`
`video. These embedded videos therefore act as a draw to attract users to YouTube.
`
`34.
`
`Because of its prominent display of YouTube’s logo and the share function
`
`that draws new users to YouTube’s own website,
`
`the embed function has contributed
`
`significantly to the explosive growth in YouTube’s popularity, network, and enterprise value.
`
`But the videos that YouTube publicly performs and displays through the embed function to
`
`draw users back to YouTube’s own site are frequently the most popular copyrighted works
`
`created and owned by Plaintiffs, not YouTube.
`
`35.
`
`YouTube and its users have not received a valid license, authorization,
`
`permission or consent to use the registered copyrighted works owned by Plaintiffs that have
`
`appeared and continue to appear on the YouTube website and are at issue in this action,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to those listed on Exhibit A hereto.
`
`Instead,
`
`in violation of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under copyright law, YouTube has willfully, intentionally, and purposefully
`
`reproduced, publicly performed, and publicly displayed the copyrighted works, and/or
`
`knowingly facilitated, enabled, induced, and materially contributed to infringing uses thereof,
`
`and/or refused to exercise its ability to control or supervise infringing uses thereof from
`
`which it obtains direct financial benefits.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants have actual knowledge and clear notice of this massive
`
`infringement, which is obvious to even the most casual visitor to the site. The rampant
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 13 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page13 of 27
`
`infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights on YouTube is open and notorious and has been the
`
`subject of numerous news reports. See, e. g., Saul Hansell, A Bet That Media Companies Will
`
`Want to Share Ad Revenue, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2006, at C1. YouTube’s site is also filled
`
`with “red flags” from which infringing activity is apparent, such as description terms and
`
`search tags using Plaintiffs’ well-known trademarks and other terms identifying their popular
`
`copyrighted works.
`
`Indeed, the presence of infringing copyrighted material on YouTube is
`
`fully intended by Defendants as a critical part of their business plan to drive traffic and
`
`increase YouTube’s network, market share and enterprise value, as reflected in the recent
`
`purchase price of $1.65 billion.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants
`
`profit handsomely
`
`from the
`
`infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrighted works, and receive financial benefits directly attributable to the infringing
`
`activity. YouTube has built an infringement-driven business by exploiting the popularity of
`
`Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works (and the works of other copyright owners) to draw millions of
`
`users to its website. YouTube derives advertising revenue directly attributable to the
`
`infringing works, because advertisers pay YouTube to display banner advertising to users
`
`whenever they log on to, search for, and view infringing videos. Through the embed
`
`function and in other ways, infringing videos also draw users to YouTube’s site in the first
`
`instance, and YouTube then derives additional advertising revenue when those users search
`
`for and watch other videos on the site.
`
`In either event, there is a direct causal connection
`
`between the presence of infringing videos and YouTube’s income from the additional
`
`“eyeballs” viewing advertising on the site. The draw of infringing works has also made an
`
`enormous contribution to the explosive growth of YouTube, resulting in the remarkable
`
`$1.65 billion valuation Google placed on it only a short time after its founding. Thus,
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 14 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page14 of 27
`
`infringement of Plaintiffs’ works contributes substantially and directly to the value of
`
`YouTube’s business.
`
`38.
`
`YouTube has the right and ability to control the massive infringement on its
`
`site. As described above, the infringement is being committed on YouTube’s own website,
`
`which Defendants control, not on other websites controlled by others. YouTube has reserved
`
`to itself the unilateral right to impose Terms of Use to which users must agree when they
`
`accept YouTube’s invitation to post videos to the site, and YouTube has the power and
`
`authority to police what occurs on its premises. Through its Terms of Use, YouTube
`
`imposes a wide number of content—based restrictions on the types of videos uploaded to the
`
`site, and reserves and exercises the unfettered right to block or remove any video which, in
`93
`
`its sole discretion,
`
`it deems “inappropriate.
`
`YouTube proactively reviews and removes
`
`pornographic videos from its library, but refuses to do the same thing for videos that
`
`obviously infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights. YouTube also demands that users grant YouTube a
`
`“worldwide .
`
`.
`
`. license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and
`
`perform”
`
`the
`
`videos
`
`they
`
`add
`
`to YouTube’s
`
`library.
`
`See Terms of Use,
`
`http://wvvw.youtube.com/t/terms (last visited March 12, 2007).
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, YouTube has also sent cease and desist letters to
`
`persons who provide software that can be used to make copies of videos from YouTube’s
`
`library, asserting that such use is not “authorized.” In truth, YouTube opposes such copying
`
`because YouTube receives advertising revenue and new users only if viewers are drawn to
`
`YouTube’s own site to view videos, not when users make copies that they can share with
`
`others independently of YouTube’s site. Thus, when it is in YouTube’s financial interest to
`
`do so, it proactively polices conduct it regards as unauthorized, even on other websites.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 15 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page15 of 27
`
`40.
`
`In stark contrast, because it profits directly from the infringement of Plaintiffs’
`
`works on its website, YouTube has failed to employ reasonable measures that could
`
`substantially reduce, or eliminate, the massive amount of copyright infringement on the
`
`YouTube site from which YouTube directly profits. Even though Defendants are well aware
`
`of the rampant infringement on the YouTube website, and YouTube has the right and ability
`
`to control
`
`it, YouTube’s intentional strategy has been to take no steps to curtail
`
`the
`
`infringement from which it profits unless notified of specific infringing videos by copyright
`
`owners, thereby shifting the entire burden — and high cost — of monitoring YouTube’s
`
`infringement onto the victims of that infringement. Although YouTube touts the availability
`
`of purported copyright protection tools on its site, at best these tools help copyright owners
`
`find a portion of the infringing files, and, as to that portion, only after the files have been
`
`uploaded. These tools also prevent upload of the exact same video (or the exact same
`
`excerpt of a video) after YouTube receives a takedown notice from the owner. However,
`
`users routinely alter as little as a frame or two of a video and repost it on YouTube where it
`
`will remain until YouTube receives a new takedown notice. YouTube’s consistent approach
`
`is to take no action to remove infringing videos from its library unless and until a copyright
`
`owner notifies it that that specific video is infringing.
`
`41.
`
`Even when YouTube responds to notices of specific infringing Videos,
`
`its
`
`response has been ineffectual. YouTube does not even try to block slightly altered copies of
`
`the very same video from being uploaded again immediately after being removed.
`
`It does
`
`not block repeat infringers from signing up for the service again with a new account. And it
`
`removes only the specific infringing clips at the specific web addresses (URLs) identified in
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 16 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page16 of 27
`
`a takedown notice, rather than all infringing works that can be reasonably located using the
`
`representative lists and other information in the notice.
`
`42.
`
`YouTube adopted this hands—off policy knowing that copyright owners have a
`
`limited ability to monitor for infringing videos on its site and send takedown notices for the
`
`videos they find. Copyright owners can monitor for infringing videos only after they are
`
`posted on the site, so there is an inevitable time lag between when a video is posted and the
`
`first reasonable time at which an owner can identify it and send a takedown notice.
`
`43.
`
`In addition, YouTube is deliberately interfering with copyright owners’ ability
`
`to find infringing videos even after they are added to YouTube’s library. YouTube offers a
`
`feature that allows users to designate “friends” who are the only persons allowed to see
`
`videos they upload, preventing copyright owners from finding infringing videos with this
`
`limitation. YouTube has also recently limited the search function so that it identifies no more
`
`than 1,000 video clips for any given search. Thus, for example, if there are several thousand
`
`infringing clips from the “South Park” series on YouTube, the limitations YouTube has
`
`placed on the search function may prevent Plaintiffs from identifying all of the infringing
`
`clips. In that case, even if Plaintiffs send takedown notices for the video clips they have been
`
`able to identify, and even if YouTube responds to the notices by removing those videos,
`
`many more infringing videos from the South Park series will still be available for viewing on
`
`YouTube. Thus, Plaintiffs cannot necessarily find all infringing videos to protect their rights
`
`through searching, even though that
`
`is the only avenue YouTube makes available to
`
`copyright owners. Moreover, YouTube still makes the hidden infringing videos available for
`
`viewing through YouTube features like the embed, share, and friends functions.
`
`For
`
`example, many users are sharing full-length copies of copyrighted works and stating plainly
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document 1 Filed 03/13/07 Page 17 of 27
`Case1:07-cv-02103-LLS Document1
`Filed 03/13/07 Page17 of 27
`
`in the description “Add me as a friend to watch.” For all these reasons, no matter how much
`
`effort and money copyright owners expend to protect their rights, there will always be a Vast
`
`collection of infringing videos available on YouTube to draw users to its site. That is
`
`precisely what YouTube intends, because YouTube makes money from the collection of
`
`infringing videos on its site.
`
`44.
`
`YouTube’s strategy also leaves Plaintiffs unable to meaningfully protect their
`
`rights in time-sensitive works, such as episodes of “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert
`
`Report” that appear on YouTube as soon as they air, or first-run movies like “An
`
`Inconvenien