UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC

Decision Date14 March 2013
Docket Number10–55732.,Nos. 09–55902,09–56777,s. 09–55902
PartiesUMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; Universal Music Corp., a New York corporation; Songs of Universal, Inc., a California corporation; Universal–Polygram International Publishing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rondor Music International, Inc., a California corporation; Universal Music–MGB NA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Universal Music–Z Tunes LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; Universal Music–MBG Music Publishing Ltd., a UK Company, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. SHELTER CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Delaware Limited Liability Company; Shelter Venture Fund LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; Spark Capital LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Spark Capital, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; Tornante Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants–Appellees, and Veoh Networks, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant. UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Universal Music Corp., a New York corporation; Songs of Universal, Inc., a California corporation; Universal–Polygram International Publishing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rondor Music International, Inc., a California corporation; Universal Music–MGB NA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Universal Music–Z Tunes LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; Universal Music–MBG Music Publishing Ltd., a UK Company, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Veoh Networks, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant–Appellee, and Shelter Capital Partners LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Shelter Venture Fund LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; Spark Capital LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Spark Capital, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; Tornante Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Universal Music Corp., a New York corporation; Songs of Universal, Inc., a California corporation; Universal–Polygram International Publishing, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rondor Music International, Inc., a California corporation; Universal Music–MGB NA LLC, a California Limited Liability company; Universal Music–Z Tunes LLC, a New York Limited Liability company; Universal Music–MBG Music Publishing Ltd., a UK company, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Veoh Networks, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven A. Marenberg (argued), Brian D. Ledahl and Carter Batsell, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffsAppellantsCross–Appellees.

Michael S. Elkin (argued), Thomas P. Lane (argued), Jennifer A. Golinveaux and Erin R. Ranahan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantAppelleeCross–Appellant.

Robert G. Badal (argued), Joel S. Cavanaugh and Emily S. Churg, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Glen L. Kulik (argued) and Alisa S. Edelson, Kulik, Gottesman, Mouton & Siegel, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.

Jeffrey G. Knowles and Julia D. Greer, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, San Francisco, CA; Eric J. Schwartz, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Broadcast Music, Inc., and American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.

Ronald L. Johnston, Sean Morris and Emilia P.E. Morris, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Robert Garrett, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers' Association, NBC Universal Inc., and American Federation of Musicians.

Daniel J. Popeo and Cory L. Andrews, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Clifford M. Sloan, Mary E. Rasenberger and Christopher G. Clark, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation.

Corynne McSherry and Michael Barclay, Electronic Frontier Foundation & Internet Archive, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Archive, American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Center for Democracy and Technology and Netcoalition.

Matthew M. Werdegar, Michael S. Kwun and Benjamin Berkowitz, Keker & Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp., and Yahoo! Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07–cv–05744–AHM–AJW.

Before: HARRY PREGERSON, RAYMOND C. FISHER, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on December 20, 2011, and appearing at 667 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.2011) is withdrawn.

Appellant's petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED AS MOOT.

A superseding opinion will be filed concurrently with this order.

The parties may file additional petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

OPINION

FISHER, Circuit Judge:

Veoh Networks (Veoh) operates a publicly accessible website that enables users to share videos with other users. Universal Music Group (UMG) is one of the world's largest recorded music and music publishing companies, and includes record labels such as Motown, Def Jam and Geffen. In addition to producing and distributing recorded music, UMG produces music videos. Although Veoh has implemented various procedures to prevent copyright infringement through its system, users of Veoh's service have in the past been able, without UMG's authorization, to download videos containing songs for which UMG owns the copyright. UMG responded by filing suit against Veoh for direct and secondary copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment to Veoh after determining that it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “safe harbor” limiting service providers' liability for “infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). We agree, and accordingly affirm.

Background 1

Veoh allows people to share video content over the Internet. Users can view videos uploaded by other users as well as authorized “partner content” made available by major copyright holders such as SonyBMG, ABC and ESPN. There are two ways to use Veoh's service: through a standalone software client application launched in late 2005, or through the veoh.com website launched in early 2006 that users access via a standard web browser. Both services are provided free of charge. Veoh generates revenue from advertising displayed along with the videos. “As of April 2009, Veoh had well over a million videos available for viewing, and users had uploaded more than four million videos to Veoh.”

Before a user may share a video through Veoh, he must register at veoh.com by providing an email address, user name and password. He must then state that he has read and agreed to Veoh's “Publisher Terms and Conditions” (PTC). The PTC instructs users that they “may not submit [material] ... that contains any ... infringing ... or illegal content” and directs that they “may only upload and publish [material] on the Veoh Service to which [they] have sufficient rights and licenses to permit the distribution of [their] [material] via the Veoh Services.” The PTC agreement also gives Veoh a license to “publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, distribute, copy, store, reproduce and/or provide” the uploaded video “through the Veoh Service, either in its original form, copy or in the form of an encoded work.”

A user who wants to share a video must also agree to Veoh's “Terms of Use,” which give Veoh a license “to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, publish, perform and transmit” the video. The Terms of Use provide that “you expressly represent and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize Veoh to use all ... copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all [material shared on Veoh].” Users must agree “not to (a) take any action or (b) upload, download, post, submit or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any [material] ... through the Veoh Service, that ... infringes any ... copyright.” Once a user agrees to the PTC and Terms of Use, he may upload a video. Each time a user begins to upload a video to Veoh's website, a message appears stating, “Do not upload videos that infringe copyright, are pornographic, obscene, violent, or any other videos that violate Veoh's Terms of Use.”

When a video is uploaded, various automated processes take place. Veoh's software automatically breaks down the video file into smaller 256–kilobyte “chunks,” which facilitate making the video accessible to others. Veoh's software also automatically converts, or “transcodes,” the video file into Flash 7 format. This is done because “the vast majority of internet users have software that can play videos” in this format. Veoh presets the requisite settings for the Flash conversion. If the user is a “Pro” user, Veoh's software also converts the uploaded video into Flash 8 and MPEG–4 formats, which are playable on some portable devices. Accordingly, when a Pro user uploads a video, Veoh automatically creates and retains four copies: the chunked file, the Flash 7 file, the Flash 8 file and the MPEG–4 file. None of these automated conversions affects the content of the video.

Veoh's computers also automatically extract metadata from information users provide to help others locate the video for viewing. Users can provide a title, as well as tags or keywords that describe the video, and can also select pre-set categories describing the video, such as “music,” “faith” or “politics.” The Veoh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
348 cases
  • Cox v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 31 Mayo 2017
    ...there is either a "'lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged.'" UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). "To survive a moti......
  • State v. Ross, Case No. 18-cv-01865-RS;
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 17 Agosto 2018
    ...legal theory" or on "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC , 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013). When evaluating such a motion, the Court must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true a......
  • Hueter v. Kruse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 17 Diciembre 2021
    ...there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged." UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC , 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), as amended (May 11,......
  • Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Septiembre 2014
    ...flag knowledge that its users had sideloaded infringing copies of “Strawberry Fields Forever.” See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1024–25 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that a user's email to a service provider identifying infringing content on its service may......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Content Owners’ Pursuit Of Secondary Infringement Claims
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 25 Marzo 2014
    ...established in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc. , 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), and UMG Recordings Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2013) — that service providers must have actual or red flag knowledge of specific infringements and that "something more" tha......
5 books & journal articles
  • Evolutionary Tales: Times of the Best and Worst
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-1, September 2017
    • 1 Septiembre 2017
    ...Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. at 530. 14. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78, 87 (2d Cir. 2016). 15. Id. at 96 (footnote omitted). 16. 718 F.3d 1006, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 112 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1392, 1398–1400 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding......
  • One Crack and an 'Evisceration': The Current State of the DMCA's Safe Harbor
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-1, September 2017
    • 1 Septiembre 2017
    ...Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. at 530. 14. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78, 87 (2d Cir. 2016). 15. Id. at 96 (footnote omitted). 16. 718 F.3d 1006, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 112 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1392, 1398–1400 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding......
  • Toward a Social Networking Law? (2017 Edition)
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-1, September 2017
    • 1 Septiembre 2017
    ...Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. at 530. 14. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78, 87 (2d Cir. 2016). 15. Id. at 96 (footnote omitted). 16. 718 F.3d 1006, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 112 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1392, 1398–1400 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding......
  • Searching for an out: Rojadirecta, myVidster, and the knowledge components of the information location tool exemption of s. 512(d).
    • United States
    • Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Vol. 18 No. 2, June - June 2014
    • 22 Junio 2014
    ...at 56-57. (50.) Id. at 57. (51.) Id. (52.) See id. (53.) 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) (2006). (54.) UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 718 F.3d 1006, 1016 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. (55.) Compare § 512(c)(1)(A)(i) ("does not have actual ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT