Cloudflare therefore fails to accommodate, and interferes with, standard technical measures. 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(B).

It is for these reasons, as well as concerns regarding nationwide personal jurisdiction, and the fact that DMCA Section 512(h) subpoenas are issued apart from any justiciable claim or controversy, that certain ISPs challenged Section 512(h) as unconstitutional. Since the Charter court found for the ISPs on the “conduit” issue and quashed the subpoenas then pending, the constitutionality issue was never reached, although the Charter court seemed to hint that Section 512 may be unconstitutional. For a more in-depth look at this issue, see RFJN I at 17-18.

V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should rule in GYP’s favor by finding that Zazzle is not entitled to the affirmative defense that its infringing conduct falls within the safe harbor set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 22 Case 2:16-cv-04587-SVW-KS Document 50-1

Case 1:12-cv-01087-DLC Document 41 Filed 11/09/12 Page 25 of 26 19 DWT 20479078v2 0025295-000064 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff The Associated Press respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss Meltwater’s Counterclaims for libel, tortious interference, and declaratory judgment of safe harbor under DMCA § 512(c) in their entirety with prejudice, together with costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

But the DMCA aims to “protect the privacy of Internet users,” not eviscerate it. Id. at 55; accord 17 U.S.C. § 512(m). The statute does not require service providers to eliminate the private storage of user-submitted content as a basis for availing themselves of the safe harbor.

The DMCA itself explicitly states that each safe harbor applies only to the specific function described in that subsection: “Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for purposes of applying this section.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(n) (emphasis added). 65 30.

Here, Steadfast has taken great pains to avoid shouldering the burdens of the copyright regime, while profiting from pirates. The Court should determine that Steadfast failed to meet the conditions for safe harbors under Section 512(i). IV. STEADFAST IS CONTRIBUTORIY LIABLE FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ALS’S TRADEMARKS.

IV. CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, Perfect 10 requests that this Court find the following: (i) that the three sample DMCA notices included herewith are each substantially complaint under DMCA’s notice standards pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§512(c)(3)(A) and (d)(3); (ii) that Defendants are not eligible for DMCA Safe Harbor pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §512 prior to the time that they registered DMCA agents with the U.S. copyright office; and (iii) the three Sample Notices conferred actual knowledge to Yandex LLC and Yandex Inc. regarding the allegedly infringing images/links they removed which were identified by those Sample Notices, for the purposes of Perfect 10’s contributory liability claim. Dated: March 13, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: __________________________________ Natalie Locke, Esq.

C, et al. v. Vasilenko, et al. United States District Court, Southern District of Florida CASE NO. 1:15-CV-21450-COOKE/TORRES Service via CM/ECF generated Notices of Electronic Filing: GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A. Karen L. Stetson E-Mail: karen.stetson@gray-robinson.com 1221 Brickell Avenue, 16 th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-6880 Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 And JENNER & BLOCK LLP Kenneth L. Doroshow* E-Mail: kdoroshow@jenner.com 1099 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 Facsimile: (202) 639-6066 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 1:15-cv-21450-MGC Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2016 Page 20 of 25 Case No. 15-cv-21450-COOKE/TORRES LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191 APP-1 STATUTORY APPENDIX: RELEVANT EXCERPTS OF ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION ACT 17 U.S.C. § 512 § 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.

Vimeo Lacks the Right and Ability to Control the Allegedly Infringing Activity The right and ability to control allegedly infringing activity focuses on a service provider’s legal and practical control over the specific infringing activity at issue. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (referring to “the infringing activity” (emphasis added)); Io, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1151 (“[T]he plain language of section 512(c) indicates that the pertinent inquiry is not whether Veoh has the right and ability to control it[s] system, but rather, whether it has the right and ability to control the infringing activity.”).