23 Cited authorities

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913 (2005) Cited 786 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 628 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Ellison v. Robertson
357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 654 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.
600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 275 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that addressing specific notices of counterfeit Tiffany products was sufficient, even though eBay "knew as a general matter that counterfeit Tiffany products were listed and sold through its website."
Graham v. James
144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 259 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that when "the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant’s copying was unauthorized under the license."
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 207 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant who "disabled itself from doing anything to prevent infringement" did not reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy
Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
211 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 97 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that implied licenses are limited to “narrow circumstances”
Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc.
633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 72 times
Holding that an employer had a duty to preserve information on its employees' computers at the start of litigation
Corbis Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.
351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that even though Amazon.com "may have encouraged third parties to use the Zshops platform and provided the tools to assist them, that does not disqualify it from immunity under § 230 because the Zshops vendor ultimately decided what information to put on its site."
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc.
213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) Cited 72 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding images and text on websites "are not statements at all—and thus fall outside the ambit of the hearsay rule"
Section 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
17 U.S.C. § 504 Cited 3,596 times 55 Legal Analyses
Stating that, where "infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000"
Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
17 U.S.C. § 512 Cited 570 times 185 Legal Analyses
Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Holding that addressing specific notices of counterfeit Tiffany products was sufficient, even though eBay "knew as a general matter that counterfeit Tiffany products were listed and sold through its website."

Holding that when "the contested issue is the scope of a license, rather than the existence of one, the copyright owner bears the burden of proving that the defendant’s copying was unauthorized under the license."

Holding that a defendant who "disabled itself from doing anything to prevent infringement" did not reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy

Holding that implied licenses are limited to “narrow circumstances”

Holding that an employer had a duty to preserve information on its employees' computers at the start of litigation

Holding that even though Amazon.com "may have encouraged third parties to use the Zshops platform and provided the tools to assist them, that does not disqualify it from immunity under § 230 because the Zshops vendor ultimately decided what information to put on its site."

Holding images and text on websites "are not statements at all—and thus fall outside the ambit of the hearsay rule"

Stating that, where "infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000"

Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"