1oz61wa

Voluntary Action
Notes
1. Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011
(“PROTECT IP Act” or “PIPA”) (S. 968—112th Cong.), introduced on May 12, 2011. Sen. Leahy released a
report (S. Rep. 112-39) on July 22, 2011 explaining the basis for the PROTECT IP Act: http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt39/pdf/CRPT-112srpt39.pdf. The bill did not pass before the 112th Congress closed,
and thus is no longer pending: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.968:.
2. Stop Online Piracy Act (“SOPA”) (H.R. 3261—112th Cong.), introduced on October 26, 2011. The bill
did not pass before the 112th Congress closed, and thus is no longer pending: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/
legislation.112hr3261.
3. For a complete discussion of this chapter’s use of the phrase “Predatory Foreign Websites,” see
generally the Civil Remedies chapter, and specifically, Resolution TF-06.
4. Jonathan Zittrain, A History of Online Gatekeeping, 19 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 253, 263-265 (2006).
5. 17 U.S.C. §106 (2006).
6. Id.
7. 17 U.S.C. §512 (2006).
8. Id.
9. The phrase “red flag knowledge” does not appear in the statute itself, but has become the accepted
shorthand way of referencing Section 512 (c)(1)(A)(ii), which states that an internet service provider’s (ISP’s)
duty to remove infringing content is triggered when the service provider becomes aware of “facts or circumstances
from which infringing activity is apparent.” This provision is distinct from Section 512 (c)(1)(A)(i)’s
requirement that an ISP remove material upon receiving “actual knowledge that the material or an activity using
the material on the system or network is infringing.” See Senate Judiciary Committee Report, S. Rep. No. 105-
190 (1998) at 44-45 (“Subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) can best be described as a ‘red flag test,’”); House Committee on
Commerce Report, H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, part 2 (1998) at 53-54. For a discussion of the difference between
the two types of knowledge, see, e.g., the blog post by Naomi Jane Gray, “The Second Circuit Finds the Beef,”
Shades of Gray Law (July 13, 2012) (available at http://www.shadesofgraylaw.com/2012/07/13/2nd-circuitfinds-the-beefreverses-summary-judgment-grant-in-youtube/#more-532).
10. See 17 U.S.C. §512(a) (2006).
11. See id. §512(c)(2) (designated agent), §512(i)(1)(A)—(B) (reasonable repeat infringer policy and
standard technical measures).
12. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (summarizing basis of
lawsuit).
13. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., No. C-08-80211, 2009 WL 102808, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)
(in the context of Viacom’s motion to compel third party discovery in California, describing YouTube’s services).
14. Id. at *2.
15. See, e.g., id.
16. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
17. Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2012).
18. Id. at 26 & 34.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 31-32 (“[T]he actual knowledge provision turns on whether the provider actually or ‘subjectively’
knew of specific infringement, while the red flag provision turns on whether the provider was subjectively
aware of facts that would have made the specific infringement ‘objectively’ obvious to a reasonable person.”).
22. Id. at 32.
23. Id. at 41-42.
24. Id. at 38.
25. Id.
26. Viacom, Int’l v. YouTube, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
27. Id. at 114-15 (“The Act places the burden of notifying such service providers of infringements upon the
copyright owner or his agent.”); id. at 115 (“Thus, the burden of showing that YouTube knew or was aware of
the specific infringements of the works in suit cannot be shifted to YouTube to disprove. Congress has determined
that the burden of identifying what must be taken down is to be on the copyright owners, a determination
which has proven practicable in practice.”).
81