Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting safe harbor protection to a website that automatically created content from user submissions of unauthorized copyrighted work
• treating Veoh.com, a website that allows users to upload and share video files, as a service provider
• treating Veoh, a website “that enables the sharing of user-provided video content over the Internet,” as a service provider
• where “hundreds of thousands of video files” had been uploaded to a website, the Court found that “no reasonable juror could conclude that a comprehensive review of every file would be feasible”
• “[T]he hypothetical possibility that a rogue user might reappear under a different user name and identity does not raise a genuine issue as to the implementation of Veoh’s policy.”
• “[T]he pertinent inquiry is not whether [the service provider] has the right and ability to control its system, but rather, whether it has the right and ability to control the infringing activity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).