¶
`
`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page1 of 73
`
`21-2974(CON)
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`___________________
`CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability company, CAROLINE REC-
`ORDS, INC., a New York Corporation, VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California
`Corporation, EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC INC., a Connecticut Corporation, EMI APRIL
`MUSIC INC., a Connecticut Corporation, EMI VIRGIN MUSIC, INC., a New York Cor-
`poration, COLGEMS-EMI MUSIC, INC., a Delaware Corporation, EMI VIRGIN SONGS,
`INC., a New York Corporation, EMI GOLD HORIZON MUSIC CORP., a New York
`Corporation, EMI UNART CATALOG INC., a New York Corporation, STONE DIA-
`MOND MUSIC CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, EMI U CATALOG INC., a
`New York Corporation, JOBETE MUSIC CO., INC., a Michigan Corporation,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`V.
`VIMEO, INC., a Delaware Limited Liability company, AKA VIMEO.COM, CON-
`NECTED VENTURES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability company,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DOES, 1-20 INCLUSIVE,
`___________________
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of New York
`___________________
`FINAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`___________________
`CATHERINE E. STETSON
`NATHANIEL A.G. ZELINSKY
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`(202) 637-5600
`cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 312-2000
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page2 of 73
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Appellants Caroline Records, Inc. and Virgin Records America, Inc. have
`
`merged into Appellant Capitol Records, LLC. Capitol Records, LLC’s parent com-
`
`pany is Universal Music Group Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uni-
`
`versal Music Group, Inc., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal
`
`Music Group N.V., a publicly-traded company organized under the laws of The
`
`Netherlands. Vivendi SE and Compagnie de Cornouaille SAS are publicly-traded
`
`companies organized under the laws of France and own more than 10% of Universal
`
`Music Group N.V.’s stock. No other publicly traded company owns more than 10%
`
`of Universal Music Group N.V.’s stock.
`
`Appellants EMI Blackwood Music, Inc., EMI April Music, Inc., EMI Virgin
`
`Music, Inc. (now known as EMI Consortium Music Publishing, Inc.), Colgems-EMI
`
`Music, Inc., EMI Virgin Songs, Inc. (now known as EMI Consortium Songs, Inc.),
`
`EMI Gold Horizon Music Corp., EMI U Catalog, Inc., EMI Unart Catalog Inc.,
`
`Jobete Music Co., Inc., and Stone Diamond Music Corporation are all partially
`
`owned, indirect subsidiaries of Sony Group Corporation, a publicly-traded company
`
`organized under the laws of Japan. No publicly traded company other than Sony
`
`Group Corporation owns more than 10% of their stock.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page3 of 73
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 6
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 7
`A.
`The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ........................................... 7
`B. Vimeo’s Original And Creative Content ......................................... 9
`1.
`Vimeo’s Employees Manually Curate Vimeo To
`Preserve The Site’s Originality And Creativity ..................... 9
`Vimeo Purges And Bans “Gameplay” Videos .................... 11
`2.
`C. Vimeo Permits Videos Containing Copyrighted Music ................ 12
`1.
`Vimeo Encourages Users To Upload Infringing
`Videos Containing Copyrighted Music And
`Forgoes Measures To Prevent Infringement ....................... 12
`In 2006, Vimeo Invents The “Lip Dub,” Which
`Puts Vimeo “On The Map” .................................................. 14
`D. Music Recording And Publishing Companies Sue Vimeo ............ 15
`E.
`The District Court Denies Vimeo’s Right To The Section
`512(c) Safe Harbor ......................................................................... 16
`1.
`The District Court Grants Vimeo Summary
`Judgment On “Right And Ability To Control” ................... 16
`The District Court Denies Vimeo Summary
`Judgment On Its Knowledge Of Specific
`Infringement ......................................................................... 20
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page4 of 73
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`F.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`The District Court Certifies An Interlocutory
`Appeal .................................................................................. 20
`This Court Remands For The District Court To
`Reconsider Vimeo’s Knowledge ................................................... 21
`1.
`This Court Clarifies The Legal Standard For Red-
`Flag Knowledge ................................................................... 21
`On Remand, The District Court Grants Vimeo
`Summary Judgment On Knowledge .................................... 23
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 24
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 24
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 27
`I.
`A REASONABLE FACTFINDER COULD CONCLUDE
`THAT VIMEO POSSESSED THE RIGHT AND ABILITY TO
`CONTROL INFRINGING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVED A
`BENEFIT .................................................................................................. 27
`A. A Provider Exerts “Substantial Influence” When It
`Makes Editorial Judgments About Users’ Uploads ....................... 28
`1.
`Step 1: Is There A Relationship Between The
`Provider’s Control And The Infringing Activity? ............... 28
`Step 2: Does The Provider Exercise Editorial
`Judgment Over Its Users’ Activity? .................................... 30
`Cybernet And Subsequent Precedent Confirm
`These Steps .......................................................................... 32
`B. A Jury Could Find That Vimeo Exerted Significant
`Editorial Judgment Over Users’ Content ....................................... 35
`1.
`Vimeo’s Control Exceeded The Provider’s Control
`In Cybernet........................................................................... 35
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page5 of 73
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`The District Court Misapplied The Substantial
`Influence Standard And Improperly Drew Every
`Inference In Vimeo’s Favor ................................................. 42
`C. Vimeo Directly Benefited From Infringement .............................. 49
`1.
`“Direct Financial Benefit” Has Its Common-Law
`Meaning ............................................................................... 49
`Vimeo Received A Financial Benefit Causally
`Related To Users’ Infringement .......................................... 50
`II. VIMEO POSSESSED RED-FLAG KNOWLEDGE OF
`INFRINGEMENT .................................................................................... 54
`A. Vimeo Employees Possessed Red-Flag Knowledge...................... 55
`1.
`Vimeo Staff Knew The Videos Contained
`Copyrighted Music .............................................................. 55
`2. Vimeo Staff Knew Specific Facts And
`Circumstances Indicating The Videos Were
`Neither Licensed Nor Fair Use ............................................ 55
`The District Court Ignored Key Evidence ..................................... 60
`B.
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 63
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page6 of 73
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES:
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................ 24, 47, 48
`Capitol Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, LLC,
`826 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................passim
`Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung,
`710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................ 30, 51, 52
`CoStar Grp., Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.,
`373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 31
`Ellison v. Robertson,
`357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 49, 50, 51
`EMI Christian Music Grp., Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC,
`844 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 49, 53, 58, 61
`Feingold v. RageOn, Inc.,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) .................................................................. 34
`Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,
`76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 53
`Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc.,
`443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971) ............................................................................. 29
`Greg Young Publ’g, Inc. v. Zazzle, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-04587, 2017 WL 2729584 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017).................... 34
`Howley v. Town of Stratford,
`217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 24, 45, 48
`Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................... passim
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) ................................................................................ 19, 28, 29
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page7 of 73
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,
`488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 49
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc.,
`213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .......................................................passim
`Purdy v. Zeldes,
`337 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 24
`Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co.,
`316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963) ....................................................................... passim
`UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC,
`718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 28
`Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc.,
`885 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... passim
`Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,
`676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................passim
`STATUTES:
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ............................................................................................passim
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1) ........................................................................................... 7, 42
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) ......................................................................................... 44
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(i) ....................................................................................... 7
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii) ........................................................................ 5, 7, 8, 58
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii) ................................................................................. 7, 8
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) ..................................................................................passim
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(C) ........................................................................................... 8
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page8 of 73
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) ................................................................................................. 8
`17 U.S.C. § 512(m) ............................................................................................ 43, 44
`17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1) ............................................................................................. 43
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1338 ........................................................................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 ........................................................................................................ 1
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIAL:
`S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) ............................................................................... 31, 44
`OTHER AUTHORITIES:
`Machinima, Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. Mar. 2022 update), ti-
`nyurl.com/mrxyxbyb ........................................................................................... 36
`Press Release, Vimeo, Vimeo Reports Q4 2021 and Full-Year 2021 Fi-
`nancial Results (Feb. 9, 2022), tinyurl.com/6yd7tddp ......................................... 2
`Murray Stassen, TikTok And Universal Music Group Sign Global Li-
`censing Deal, Music Bus. Worldwide (Feb 8, 2021), ti-
`nyurl.com/sjd5xc5c ............................................................................................. 41
`Dan Zak, Office Drones, Lip-Sync Your Heart Out, Wash. Post (Nov.
`11, 2007), tinyurl.com/bdctazfx .......................................................................... 14
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page9 of 73
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Second Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 21-2949(L)
`No. 21-2974(CON)
`____________
`FINAL BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`____________
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`In this case, rightsholders brought claims against Vimeo under federal
`
`copyright law and state common law. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367. On May 28, 2021, the district court granted Vimeo
`
`partial summary judgment. SPA97-124 [ECF 227]. The parties stipulated that the
`
`rightsholders would dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice, with any
`
`refiling conditioned on the rightsholders prevailing in this appeal. SPA126 [ECF
`
`235 at 2].
`
`On November 1, 2021, the District Court entered judgment on all claims.
`
`SPA131 [ECF 238 at 2]. The rightsholders timely filed notices of appeal on
`
`November 29. JA1530-31 [ECF 240 at 1-2]. This Court has jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page10 of 73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This appeal concerns widespread infringement of copyrighted music on a
`
`website called “Vimeo.com.” Vimeo allows users to upload and share videos. But
`
`because there are many video-sharing sites on the internet, Vimeo carved out a spe-
`
`cific niche to differentiate itself. Vimeo doesn’t host just any kind of video. It de-
`
`fines itself as a home for “original” and creative content. And Vimeo doesn’t pas-
`
`sively host videos. Its employees carefully curate the site by promoting, demoting,
`
`and purging content. Vimeo’s editorial efforts seek to ensure that it displays the
`
`most engaging videos to attract advertisers, viewers, and users alike.
`
`Vimeo’s niche proved lucrative. Today, the company is publicly traded and
`
`generates nearly $100 million in revenue every quarter.1 This dispute involves the
`
`way Vimeo built and grew its business: by exploiting well-known hit songs and will-
`
`fully violating copyright law from 2006-2013.
`
`Since its founding in 2004, Vimeo realized that popular music is a key ingre-
`
`dient to its business. Unlike competitors such as YouTube, however, Vimeo refused
`
`to license and pay for that music. Instead, Vimeo adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell”
`
`policy. JA941 [ECF 94-8 at 17]. Users uploaded videos containing famous songs.
`
`In turn, Vimeo curated those videos to highlight the best content, earning advertising
`
`1 See Press Release, Vimeo, Vimeo Reports Q4 2021 and Full-Year 2021 Financial
`Results (Feb. 9, 2022), tinyurl.com/6yd7tddp.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page11 of 73
`
`revenue for every viewer. But Vimeo did not pay a dime to the people who owned
`
`the music that drove its traffic.
`
`Appellants are rightsholders—owners of copyrighted sound recordings and
`
`musical compositions—whose music Vimeo exploited for profit. In 2009, they sued
`
`to stop Vimeo’s infringement and recover damages for Vimeo’s misconduct. The
`
`rightsholders have identified approximately 1,600 videos that appeared on Vimeo
`
`and which contained their copyrighted works, ranging from The Beatles to The
`
`Beastie Boys. Vimeo claims, however, that it can exploit the rightsholders’ intellec-
`
`tual property without authorization, compensation, or fear of liability because it
`
`qualifies for one of the “safe harbors” established by the Digital Millennium Copy-
`
`right Act (DMCA).
`
`In 2013, the District Court initially denied Vimeo summary judgment but cer-
`
`tified an interlocutory appeal. On interlocutory review, this Court clarified a narrow
`
`legal question about one aspect of the DMCA and returned the case to the District
`
`Court for further proceedings. See Capitol Recs., LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78
`
`(2d Cir. 2016) (Vimeo I).
`
`On remand, and after detailed briefing regarding the copious record, the Dis-
`
`trict Court granted Vimeo summary judgment based on the DMCA. That was
`
`wrong. The DMCA does not provide Vimeo a safe harbor for two reasons.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page12 of 73
`
`First, the safe harbor does not apply to online businesses, like Vimeo, that
`
`possess “the right and ability to control” users’ infringing activity. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 512(c)(1)(B). This Court has explained that a website has “the right and ability to
`
`control” infringement when it exerts a “substantial influence on the activities of us-
`
`ers.” Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 38 (2d Cir. 2012). Although
`
`this Court has not yet had an opportunity to further define “substantial influence,”
`
`the statute’s text, purpose, and persuasive precedent suggest that “substantial influ-
`
`ence” means a degree of editorial control over users’ activities.
`
`Vimeo’s staff exercises the kind of control that renders it ineligible for the
`
`DMCA “safe harbor”—and liable for infringement. Vimeo employees add videos
`
`to staff-curated channels, promote content they deem interesting and inventive, de-
`
`mote content they consider “trashy,” and purge videos from Vimeo they deem in-
`
`sufficiently creative. Indeed, at periods covered by this lawsuit, Vimeo told adver-
`
`tisers that its “editorial team literally watches every video that gets uploaded,” and
`
`that its significant editorial efforts differentiated Vimeo from the competition.
`
`JA928 [ECF 94-6 at 6].
`
`It thus makes good sense why the DMCA does not give Vimeo a free pass to
`
`exploit users’ infringement. Vimeo was in a unique position to prevent infringe-
`
`ment. It decided to maximize profit instead.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page13 of 73
`
`But at summary judgment, the District Court found that Vimeo did not possess
`
`“the right and ability to control” users’ infringing activity. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B).
`
`That was wrong. The District Court misapplied the legal standard for “substantial
`
`influence.” Indeed, it applied no real standard at all. And the District Court drew
`
`every inference in Vimeo’s favor, rather than (as it should have on summary judg-
`
`ment) the other way around. Most notably, the District Court ignored Vimeo’s pre-
`
`litigation characterization of its editorial efforts as extensive and effective, instead
`
`crediting Vimeo’s post-litigation arguments to the contrary. A factfinder should de-
`
`cide which of Vimeo’s statements to believe—not a court at summary judgment.
`
`The second reason this Court should vacate the District Court’s judgment is
`
`that the DMCA safe harbor does not apply when Vimeo’s employees watched spe-
`
`cific videos and were aware of “facts or circumstances”—known colloquially as “red
`
`flags”—that made the videos objectively infringing. Id. § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii). In its
`
`interlocutory decision earlier in this case, this Court clarified that the fact that a video
`
`contains an entire song does not, by itself, mean the video is obviously infringing to
`
`a hypothetical person. But this Court remanded the case for the District Court to
`
`determine whether Vimeo’s employees had “expertise or knowledge with respect to
`
`the market for music and the laws of copyright” such that the videos were obviously
`
`infringing. See Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 97.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page14 of 73
`
`A jury could find that Vimeo’s staff had that requisite expertise or knowledge.
`
`Vimeo recruited employees who were familiar with the music industry, and told
`
`them that incorporating music into videos “generally” violated copyrights. At least
`
`as of late 2008, employees knew that the plaintiff rightsholders had never authorized
`
`their music to appear on Vimeo. And in early 2009, Vimeo’s lawyers warned em-
`
`ployees to remove their own infringing videos from the site.
`
`In response, Vimeo insists its employees could nevertheless have thought in-
`
`dividual users had negotiated licenses with rightsholders to use entire recordings of
`
`well-known hit songs in amateur productions. Given everything Vimeo’s employees
`
`knew, that conclusion is as implausible as it sounds—and a reasonable jury could
`
`conclude as much.
`
`This Court should vacate the District Court’s judgment and permit this case
`
`to proceed to trial.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Whether a reasonable juror could find that Vimeo had the right and
`
`ability to control users’ infringing activity and received a direct benefit from it,
`
`making Vimeo ineligible for Section 512(c)’s safe harbor.
`
`2. Whether a reasonable juror could find that Vimeo’s employees
`
`possessed red-flag knowledge of infringement, making Vimeo ineligible for Section
`
`512(c)’s safe harbor.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page15 of 73
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
`
`A.
`
`In 1998, Congress passed the DMCA “to update domestic copyright law for
`
`the digital age.” Viacom, 676 F.3d at 26. Among other things, the Act specifies
`
`when internet service providers—a broad category that includes websites—are liable
`
`for storing or transmitting copyrighted material. Id. at 27.
`
`The DMCA reflects “a compromise” between providers and rightsholders.
`
`Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 82, 89-90. To strike the proper balance, the DMCA creates
`
`“safe harbors” that limit providers’ liability “for certain common activities.” Via-
`
`com, 676 F.3d at 27 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Act preserves liability
`
`for conduct falling outside a safe harbor. Id.
`
`This appeal involves Section 512(c)’s safe harbor, which applies when pro-
`
`viders store material “at the direction of a user.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1). Section
`
`512(c) “insulates service providers from liability for infringements of which they are
`
`unaware.” Vimeo I, 826 F.3d at 82. If a provider learns about specific, infringing
`
`material a user uploaded to a network, however, it must “remove, or disable access
`
`to, the material.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). Providers must designate “an
`
`agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement,” allowing rightsholders to
`
`inform providers about users’ infringing material and triggering an obligation to re-
`
`move it. Id. § 512(c)(2).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page16 of 73
`
`If a provider learns about infringement but does not remove infringing mate-
`
`rial, it cannot invoke the DMCA’s safe harbor. Id. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii), (c)(1)(C),
`
`(c)(3). A provider also cannot invoke the safe harbor if it fails to remedy infringe-
`
`ment despite having red-flag knowledge—meaning awareness of “facts or circum-
`
`stances from which infringing activity is apparent.” Id. § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii).
`
`A provider also cannot invoke Section 512(c)’s safe harbor if the provider
`
`possesses “the right and ability to control” users’ “infringing activity” and “re-
`
`ceive[s] a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.” Id.
`
`§ 512(c)(1)(B). This Court interpreted the phrase “right and ability to control” in
`
`Viacom. As the Court explained, the phrase originates in the common law of vicar-
`
`ious copyright liability. Viacom, 676 F.3d at 37. At common law, any ability to
`
`block access to a computer network constitutes control and makes a service provider
`
`vicariously liable for users’ infringement. Id. But Section 512(c) already presumes
`
`providers have the ability to “block access to infringing material,” such as when
`
`rightsholders send providers takedown notices. Id. (cleaned up).
`
`This creates a “catch-22.” See id. If the common-law vicarious-liability
`
`standard applies to Section 512(c), a “prerequisite to safe harbor protection”—the
`
`ability to block content after receiving a takedown notice—“would at the same time
`
`be a disqualifier” under Section 512(c)’s right-and-ability-to-control-provision. Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page17 of 73
`
`To resolve the catch-22, this Court concluded that “the right and ability to
`
`control” in Section 512(c) does not carry its precise common-law meaning. Id. at
`
`37-38. As used in the statute, the ability to control “requires something more” than
`
`the mere “ability to remove or block access to materials posted on a service pro-
`
`vider’s website.” Id. at 38 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to Viacom,
`
`a provider has the “right and ability to control” if the provider exerts “substantial
`
`influence on the activities of users.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Vimeo’s Original And Creative Content.
`
`1.
`
`Vimeo’s Employees Manually Curate Vimeo To Preserve The
`Site’s Originality And Creativity.
`
`Vimeo defines itself by a commitment to originality and creativity. From “the
`
`beginning,” Vimeo was dedicated to “creative work,” and the site only permits users
`
`to upload videos they have “created.” JA915-916 [ECF 94-1 at 24-25]. According
`
`to Vimeo’s co-founder, the company’s slogan could be “Not YouTube,” a contrast
`
`with the popular platform which allows users to upload just about anything. JA899
`
`[ECF 93-5 at 45]. Originality “sets Vimeo apart from other video sharing websites”
`
`because “almost everything you see on the site was actually created by the person
`
`who uploaded it.” JA946 [ECF 94-8 at 43].
`
`Vimeo’s staff are active participants in their “vibrant community of intelligent
`
`and creative people,” and lead “by positive example.” JA915; 827 [ECF 94-1 at 24;
`
`ECF 90-7 at 41]. Nearly everyone who works for Vimeo uses the site personally,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page18 of 73
`
`something that differentiates Vimeo “from other video services, like YouTube.”
`
`JA974 [ECF 94-10 at 22]. The company entices hires with the promise of time
`
`“spent inventing, sharing, shooting, editing, gazing at amazing videos.” JA1024
`
`[ECF 96-3 at 2]. The staff review videos, and like and comment on user content.
`
`JA825 [ECF 90-6 at 40]. At one time, Vimeo had a dedicated group called the
`
`“Street Team” “charged with making” and uploading videos. JA791-792 [ECF 89-
`
`6 at 27-28].
`
`As part of their duties, Vimeo’s staff curate their site by actively promoting,
`
`demoting, and purging content based on its artistic merit (or deemed lack thereof).
`
`As Vimeo’s community director colorfully explained, “hardline Vimeo editorial fas-
`
`cism has been important to keeping our website from becoming a trashpile.” JA826
`
`[ECF 90-7 at 40]. Vimeo staff “[w]atch a lot of videos” and remove content that
`
`“should not be on Vimeo.” JA793; 674 [ECF 89-6 at 60; ECF 89-1 at 41]; see also,
`
`e.g., JA541 [ECF 88-4 at 37]. Vimeo even told advertisers that Vimeo’s “editorial
`
`team literally watches every video that gets uploaded.” JA928 [ECF 94-6 at 6]; see
`
`JA650 [ECF 88-7 at 15].
`
`In the period covered by this lawsuit, employees used a proprietary suite of
`
`40 software tools to efficiently curate Vimeo. See JA736-739; 539; 979 [ECF 89-4
`
`at 40-43; ECF 88-4 at 23; ECF 94-13 at 65]. One particular tool showed staff the
`
`most popular videos on the site. JA556 [ECF 88-4 at 98]. Staff reviewed these
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page19 of 73
`
`popular videos daily to ensure they comply “with the community guidelines.”
`
`JA556-557, 560 [ECF 88-4 at 98-99, 102].
`
`If a popular clip comported with Vimeo’s terms-of-use but was not “exem-
`
`plary of Vimeo-esc’d stuff,” Vimeo staff “buried” the video. JA561-562 [Id. at 103-
`
`104]. “Burying” removed the video from the website’s “Discover” feature, making
`
`the material less visible on the site. See JA801-802; 616-617 [ECF 89-7 at 55-56;
`
`ECF 88-6 at 50-51].
`
`In addition to burying material they disliked, Vimeo employees actively pro-
`
`moted users’ videos based on their subjective view of the videos’ artistic merit.
`
`Vimeo’s curated “Staff Picks” channel (to which all users were automatically sub-
`
`scribed) and “HD” channel prominently presented staff-selected videos to the Vimeo
`
`user community. JA711; 964 [ECF 89-2 at 6; ECF 94-9 at 83]. The staff watched
`
`videos from across the site, picked the ones they liked, and added that content to
`
`Vimeo’s featured channels. JA600-606 [ECF 88-6 at 16-22]; see JA867 [ECF 93-3
`
`at 29].
`
`2.
`
`Vimeo Purges And Bans “Gameplay” Videos.
`
`In 2008, after a vigorous internal debate, Vimeo banned a particular type of
`
`content called “gameplay” from the site. Gameplay is a recording of someone play-
`
`ing a video game. Vimeo staff questioned whether such videos were in keeping with
`
`Vimeo’s commitment to originality and creativity. JA826-828 [ECF 90-7 at 40-42].
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 21-2949, Document 133, 08/30/2022, 3374196, Page20 of 73
`
`Ultimately, Vimeo decided to ban gameplay uploads and purged existing
`
`gameplay videos from the site. JA913 [ECF 93-15 at 2]. Senior staff expressed
`
`concern that Vimeo’s new policy could engender “backlash”: “We are fascists, but
`
`so far no one has called us out on it too publicly. This could be the thing that really
`
`wakes people up.” JA950 [ECF 94-8 at 49]. When someone in response suggested
`
`justifying the ban on gameplay videos as motivated by copyright concerns, others
`
`pushed back. “Legal is kind of a cop out in my opinion since we ignore music and
`
`say that legality doesn’t matter when it comes to the uploading rules.” Id. Instead,
`
`by banning gameplay, Vimeo was “just straight controlling our website.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`Vimeo Permits Videos Containing Copyrighted Music.
`
`1.
`
`Vimeo Encourages Users To Upload Infringing Videos
`Containing Copyrighted Music And Forgoes Measures To
`Prevent Infringement.
`
`Vimeo took the opposite tack from its gameplay ban when it came to another
`
`type of content: music.
`
`In 2007, Vimeo estimated users “incorporate[d] copyrighted music in” 10%-
`
`20% of “personal videos.” JA896 [ECF 93-5 at 25]. But Vimeo did not purge videos
`
`containing that copyrighted music. Rather, it encouraged users to upload more. See
`
`JA950 [ECF 94-8 at 49]. Meanwhile, Vimeo’s users reported migrating to Vimeo
`
`because Vimeo freely permitted copyrighted music, unlike other websites. See infra
`
`