Yout LLC v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-1602 (SRU) |
| Parties | YOUT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., and DOE RECORD COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Yout LLC (“Yout”) filed this four-count suit against The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (the “RIAA”) and Doe Record Companies 1-10, seeking a declaratory judgment that Yout's software, which allows users to download audio, video, and audio/video files from major streaming websites, does not violate section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Yout seeks damages in connection with the DMCA, a common law business disparagement claim, and a common law defamation claim for claimed misrepresentations made by the RIAA alleging that Yout infringed unidentified RIAA members' copyrights.
The RIAA moves to dismiss Yout's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), primarily arguing that the facts pled by Yout establish that the software at issue circumvents an effective technological measure in violation of section 1201 as a matter of law. Under the same reasoning the RIAA avers that it made no misrepresentations about Yout's software in its circumvention notices. Additionally, the RIAA alleges that Yout does not have a plausible claim for damages under section 512(f) because the DMCA does not penalize a misrepresentation of circumvention.
For the reasons that follow, I grant the RIAA's motion to dismiss Yout's declaratory judgment claim section 512(f) claim, and common law defamation claims.
Plaintiff Yout is a Connecticut limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Doc. No. 45, at 1 ¶ 2.
Defendant RIAA is a trade organization incorporated under New York law and headquartered in Washington, D.C. Id. at 1 ¶ 3. The RIAA represents various record companies, including defendants Doe Record Companies 1-10.[2] Id. at 2 ¶ 4. Collectively, the RIAA and Doe Record Companies 1-10 are “Defendants.”
1. Yout
The Internet contains diverse types of content, some of which may be accessed via a unique hyperlink, a uniform resource locator (commonly referred to as “URL” or “web address”), that directs computing devices to content on the Internet. Id. 4 ¶¶ 25-26. Access to some internet content is limited by a paywall or protective technologies such as encryption, content scrambling, or ciphers. Id. at 4 ¶¶ 27-32.
Yout created and operates a service by which a user can enter a URL linked to internet content, in specific formats, to create a personal copy of the content on the user's device. Id. at 5 ¶ 34. The content accessed by Yout is not behind a paywall, encrypted, or subject to a cipher. Id. at 4 ¶¶ 27-32. It is publicly accessible. Id. at 4 ¶ 33.
2. The Yout Service
On the domain yout.com, a user may insert a URL and choose to create a local copy of the content in a specific format, such as an MP3 audio file or an MP4 video file. Id. at 5-6 ¶¶ 36-39, 43.
As a result, a user can listen to or watch the locally-stored copy when he or she is not connected to the internet, such as during a long flight, without visiting the website where the original content resides. Id. at 6 ¶¶ 43-44, 7 ¶ 52. Yout describes its service by explaining that users may “time shift” the content.[3] Id. at 7 ¶ 46, 23 ¶ 103, 25 ¶ 121.
The content recorded by Yout users is never saved or retained by Yout's platform or servers. Id. at 5 ¶ 35, 7 ¶ 47.
One of the platforms on which a Yout user may obtain a local copy of a file, and the platform at the heart of this dispute, is YouTube. Id. at 8 ¶ 55. YouTube content plays on any HTTP user agent, including a web browser or user-side software, with a Javascript interpreter.[4]Id. at 8 ¶¶ 57-58, 22-23 ¶¶ 98-99. When a HTTP user agent encounters YouTube's “signature mechanism,” it reads and interprets the JavaScript program sent by YouTube, derives a “signature value,” and sends that value back to YouTube to initiate the video stream. Id. at 22 ¶ 98. YouTube content is not encrypted, i.e., under a “digital rights management” regime, nor subject to a “secret key,” like a DVD. Id. at 8 ¶¶ 57-60.
Following a series of steps, a user may download a YouTube video and/or audio file directly in the Chrome browser. Id. at 10-18 ¶¶ 63-77. For example, a user may utilize the Chrome browser's Developer Tools menu to view the YouTube “Request URL,” a lengthy web address containing the text “range=” followed by a sequence of numbers that can be modified to begin at zero and end at a much larger number. Id. at 12-13 ¶¶ 68-70. Using the Chrome browser's Developer Tools menu, the user may identify the largest file on the YouTube player page, which the Second Amended Complaint implies is the downloadable video file. Id. at 11 ¶ 67. If the user copies and pastes the YouTube “Request URL” for the video file into a new browser window or tab, then modifies the sequence of numbers in the “Request URL” to begin at zero, then a full-size video (without sound) will appear. Id. In addition to the video, a three-dot menu containing a “Download” option will also appear. Id. at 15 ¶¶ 71-72. By selecting the Download option, the user can save a local copy of the video file (without audio) to his or her computer. Id.
The user may also download the audio file for the video by returning to the Developer Tools menu; identifying the file with the shortest “Request URL” among the large files; then repeating the copy, paste, and modify-the-number-sequence process. Id. at 16 ¶ 73. As a result, the user may download, separately, a video file and an audio file. Of note, the Second Amended Complaint provides no instructions regarding how a user can download an audio/video file to save a local copy of a video with its audio.
The internet contains numerous articles and videos explaining how to download YouTube video and audio files using the aforementioned procedure. Id. at 17-19 ¶¶ 75-78.
The Yout platform enables a user to complete the process of manually downloading files directly from YouTube in a “cleaner and easier format” and “fewer steps” by “automat[ing]” the process described above. Id. at 8 ¶ 56, 20 ¶ 79, 21 ¶ 91, 23 ¶ 102.
A Yout user enters a link to the video. Id. at 5 ¶ 34. The same as any browser or other user-side software, Yout reads and interprets a JavaScript program sent by YouTube, deriving a signature value, which it then sends back to YouTube to initiate the video stream. Id. at 22 ¶ 98. To record video or audio from a particular YouTube video, Yout utilizes a configured version of the youtube-dl tool with ffmpeg. Id. at 23 ¶ 100 n.5.[5]
The mechanism used by Yout's platform does not require any password, key, or other secret knowledge to access a YouTube video. Id. at 23 ¶¶ 99-100. Rather, YouTube provides the means of accessing its videos to anyone who requests them. Id. at 23 ¶ 100. Any digital mechanism designed as anti-circumvention technology, such as “digital rights management,” can stop Yout users from recording and saving the content. Id. at 22 ¶ 94.
3. The RIAA Notices
On October 25, 2019, the RIAA, on behalf of Doe Record Companies 1-10, sent a notice to Google with the intent to cause Google to delist Yout's software platform from searches.[6] Id. at 20 ¶ 83. The October 25, 2019 notice stated:
Id. at 20 ¶ 84. The RIAA sent similarly-worded notices again on October 26, 2019 and June 22, 2020.[7] See id. at 20-21 ¶¶ 85-88.
Relying on the RIAA's notices, Google delisted Yout and rendered it undiscoverable to Yout's users. Id. at 20 ¶¶ 83, 85, 87. Users searching for “yout.com” via Google now receive a notice stating that Id. at 24 ¶ 110. In response, some Yout customers have cancelled their subscriptions to Yout's services. Id.
In addition, Yout's PayPal account was shut down due to the RIAA's notices, causing Yout financial and reputational damage. Id. at 24 ¶ 111.
On October 25, 2020, Yout filed this lawsuit. Compl., Doc. No. 1.
On December 14, 2020, Yout filed an amended complaint. See Am. Compl., Doc. No. 9. On January 14, 2021, the RIAA moved to dismiss the complaint, doc. no. 28, which Yout opposed, doc. no. 35.
On August 5, 2021, I held oral argument on the motion to dismiss. Minute Entry, Doc. No. 42. At that hearing, although the parties' arguments were directed towards whether YouTube's access control mechanisms were effective and whether Yout's technology circumvented them, the disputes principally focused on the nature of YouTube and Yout's technologies. See generally Hrg. Tr. (August 5, 2021), Doc. No. 46. I observed that the parties' arguments had “wandered well, well...
To continue reading
Request your trial