1oz61wa

Civil Remedies
84. Id. at 1169.
85. Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1172. See also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 797-
98 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Google’s search engine itself assists in the distribution of infringing content to
Internet users”; “Because location services lead Internet users directly to infringing images and often display
them on the website of the service itself, we find that location services are more important and more essentialindeed,
more ‘material’” than payment services). Cf. Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, 760-762 (7th
Cir. 2012) (website embedding video from another site not liable for contributory infringement of public
performance right where no “admissible evidence that [videos] actually being accessed via myVidster, rather
than via other websites, and if they are not, myVidster is not contributing to their performance”); Newborn v.
Yahoo!, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 181, 189 (D.D.C. 2005) (dismissing complaint where “there is not even an
allegation that the defendants’ activities were anything more than ‘the mere operation of the website businesses.’”).
86. 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007).
87. Visa Int’l Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d at 796.
88. Id. at 797-98.
89. See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1172.
90. Courts in other jurisdictions have ordered ISPs to block certain sites. See http://www.dslreports.com/
shownews/UK-ISPs-Now-All-Blocking-Pirate-Bay-120017 (UK ISPs ordered to block Pirate Bay site); http://
www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2114332/belgian-isps-block-pirate-bay (Belgian ISPs ordered to block Pirate
Bay site).
91. See supra at n. 55 (citing evidence of de-indexing of certain websites in French versions of Google,
Yahoo! and Bing search engines); see also, e.g., Mike Masnick, “Argentinean Celebrities Succeed In Forcing
Search Engines To Block Search Results On Their Name,” Techdirt (Nov. 12, 2008) (available at http://
www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml). Apparently, Yahoo and Google have implemented
certain measures to comply with an Argentinean order requiring them to filter out various content. See Firuzeh
Shokooh Valle and Christopher Soghoian, “Adios Diego: Argentine Judges Cleanse the Internet,” OpenNet
Initiative Blog (Nov. 11, 2008) (available at http://opennet.net/blog/2008/11/adi%C3%B3s-diego-argentinejudges-cleanse-internet).
Most recently, on Nov. 28, 2013, a French court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) in Paris
ordered search engines operating in France to de-index 16 websites found to be infringing of the plaintiffs’
copyrights (the same decision also ordered ISPs operating in France to block their subscribers’ from accessing
the same 16 sites). A description of the decision is available at http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/frenchcourt-orders-google-and-others-to-block-16-video-streaming-sites/921936
(Nov. 30, 2013). No U.S. court has
yet held that blocking or filtering search engine results of infringing sites is a “simple measure.” In Perfect 10 v.
Amazon, the court held that there were “factual disputes over whether there are reasonable and feasible means
for Google to refrain from providing access to infringing images.” 508 F.3d at 1172.
92. See, e.g., Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 4660, 2002 WL 1997918, at *11
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) (“While there is no evidence that MP3Board could control which links were initially
found by its automated procedures, MP3Board could delete links from its database and thus prevent them from
being displayed in response to user queries. . . .”).
93. Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1171 n.11.
94. Id. at 1175. The court reached a similar conclusion with respect to the vicarious liability claim that
Perfect 10 brought against credit card processing services. The court held that those services did not have “any
ability to directly control that activity, and the mere ability to withdraw a financial ‘carrot’ does not create the
‘stick’ of ‘right and ability to control’ that vicarious infringement requires.” Visa, 494 F.3d at 803.
95. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1023 (quoting A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 902
(N.D. Cal. 2000)). See also Cybernet Ventures, 213 F. Supp. 2d at 1174 (“The more new visitors an infringing
site attracts, the more money Cybernet makes.”).
96. Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1078-79.
97. Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d 242 Fed. Appx. 833 (3rd Cir.
2007); see also Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. 07-2757, 2008 WL 4410095, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2008)
(“Parker has not set forth any plausible allegations that either defendant financially benefits from this third-party
infringement of Parker’s copyrighted works, so as to constitute vicarious copyright infringement.”).
98. See, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. chanel255.org, No. 12–21762–CIV, at 6, 2012 WL 1941598, at *4 (S.D. Fla.
May 29, 2012) (finding likelihood of consumer confusion where evidence “show[s] that the goods produced
and sold by Defendants are nearly identical to genuine Chanel products, indicate[s] that both Chanel and
39