Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that YouTube, a website “onto which users may upload video files” that are “then made available for viewing,” is a service provider
• holding that to adopt common law principles of vicarious liability “in the DMCA context . . . would render the statute internally inconsistent.”
• concluding that YouTube’s “related videos” software function qualified for safe harbor protection under section 512(c
• concluding that YouTube’s “related videos” software function qualified for safe harbor protection under section 512(c
• explaining that service providers are not limited to those who merely store material, but not expanding upon the limits of this definition
• suggesting that a reasonable jury could 4 find red‐flag knowledge with respect to groups of clips

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).