safe harbor

DMCA Safe Harbor for Service Providers Also Protects Non-Storage Activities Designed to Facilitate Access to User-Stored Content



Author: Stuart Loh

Universal Music Group (“UMG”) sued Veoh Networks, Inc. (“Veoh”), an Internet-based service that allows users to share videos online, for copyright infringement. In the present proceedings, UMG moved for partial summary judgment that Veoh was not entitled to protection under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), a safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act designed to shield a service provider from liability arising from infringing conduct occurring “by reason of storage at the direction of the user.” In addition to storing videos uploaded by users, Veoh engaged in other activities (e.g., converting the format of the videos) to provide other users with access to them. UMG argued that because those other activities do not actually constitute storage, Veoh may not rely on § 512(c) as a shield to liability. The court denied UMG’s motion and rejected UMG’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “by reason of,” holding that such an interpretation was not consistent with its common meaning and that it would undermine the ability of § 512(c) to shield service providers from liability if they did anything with user-uploaded materials other than store it untouched. Instead, the court held that § 512(c) covers Veoh’s activities because they were designed to facilitate access to user-stored content.

Published in Tuesday, February 24, 2009, Volume 6, No. 3

Content-Sharing Website Veoh.com Entitled to Safe Harbor Under DMCA

Io Group, Inc. (“Io”) sued Veoh Networks, Inc. (“Veoh”) in federal district court for direct, contributory, and/or vicarious copyright infringement performed in the website veoh.com, which enables the sharing of user-provided content. Veoh responded that it qualifies for safe harbor under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which provides protection from liability for: “(1) transitory digital network communications; (2) system caching; (3) information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users; and (4) information location tools.” The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with defendant Veoh and dismissed the case.

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

Published in Tuesday, October 10, 2008, Volume 6, No. 1
Syndicate content