Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 47
`
`
`
`DAVID H. KRAMER, SBN 168452
`MAURA L. REES, SBN 191698
`LAUREN GALLO WHITE, SBN 309075
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`Email: dkramer@wsgr.com
` mrees@wsgr.com
` lwhite@wsgr.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC
`
`BRIAN M. WILLEN (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5801
`Email: bwillen@wsgr.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`MARIA SCHNEIDER, UNIGLOBE
`ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and AST
`PUBLISHING LTD., individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendants
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PIRATE MONITOR LTD, PIRATE MONITOR
`LLC, and GÁBOR CSUPÓ,
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 47
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Since its founding in 2005, YouTube has gone far above and beyond its legal obligations
`
`to assist copyright holders in protecting their rights. It has developed best-in-class processes for
`
`removing allegedly infringing materials pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`(“DMCA”), which protects online services like YouTube from claims of infringement by their
`
`users. It has also invested well over a hundred million dollars to pioneer industry-leading
`
`copyright management tools like its Content ID system.
`
`Precisely because YouTube’s novel copyright management tools are so powerful, they
`
`must be used with care. These special tools enable users to automatically (or at the touch of a
`
`button) remove content from YouTube or block it from appearing in the first place. Misused or
`
`put in the wrong hands, these tools can be used to censor videos that others have every right to
`
`share through YouTube. These tools can also enable users to wrongfully claim ownership rights
`
`in others’ content or to take for themselves revenue that rightly belongs to others.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims in this case offer an especially pointed example of why YouTube limits
`
`access to Content ID. Plaintiffs complain that they have not been allowed access to Content ID.
`
`But Dismissed Plaintiff Pirate Monitor has clearly demonstrated why it cannot be trusted to use
`
`that tool properly. As set forth In YouTube’s Counterclaims, Pirate Monitor engaged in
`
`widespread abuse of the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown process, going so far as to upload
`
`hundreds of videos to YouTube under false pretenses only then to claim, through false DMCA
`
`notices, that those same videos were infringing. This was apparently a ruse to obtain access to
`
`Content ID, and when it failed Pirate Monitor responded with this lawsuit. As for Plaintiffs
`
`Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC (“Uniglobe”), and AST Publishing Ltd (“AST”),
`
`they are suing YouTube on copyrighted works that they and their agents licensed YouTube to
`
`use. Not only that, despite Plaintiffs Maria Schneider and Uniglobe’s claims that they have no
`
`access to Content ID, their agents in fact used the tool to generate revenue from those same
`
`works on their behalf. Use of Content ID requires far greater care and candor.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-2-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims of entitlement to use Content ID are badly misguided; their claims of
`
`copyright infringement even more so. Defendants YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) and Google LLC
`
`(“Google,” and collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer the First Amended Complaint (“First
`
`Amended Complaint,” Dkt. No. 99) and assert Counterclaims against Dismissed Plaintiff Pirate
`
`Monitor LTD.1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
`
`To the extent the paragraphs (“Paragraphs”) of the First Amended Complaint are grouped
`
`under headings and subheadings, Defendants respond generally that such headings and
`
`subheadings (some of which are repeated below for reference only and which do not constitute
`
`admissions) state legal conclusions and pejorative inferences to which no response is required.
`
`To the extent a response is necessary, Defendants deny each and every heading and subheading
`
`in the First Amended Complaint and incorporate by reference this response in each Paragraph
`
`below as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Further, Defendants object that, rather than a short and plain statement of Plaintiffs’
`
`allegations and claims required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, the First Amended Complaint is an overlong
`
`narrative with lengthy Paragraph after lengthy Paragraph of advocacy. The complex rhetoric and
`
`built-in assumptions in the First Amended Complaint make straightforward responses often
`
`impossible.
`
`Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny any and all allegations as set forth
`
`in the First Amended Complaint. Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend and/or
`
`supplement their Answer as may be necessary. Defendants further answer the numbered
`
`Paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`
`1 On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff Pirate Monitor voluntarily dismissed all claims against Defendants.
`(Dkt. No. 66). The parties stipulated that Defendants’ counterclaims remain in this suit.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-3-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 47
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged “lack [of] resources and leverage necessary to combat copyright
`
`infringement.” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`allegation that “watching[ing] more than one billion hours of videos every single day ... equat[es]
`
`to approximately 5 billion videos viewed each day.” Defendants otherwise admit the allegations
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`in Paragraph 4.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`Defendants admit that they generate revenue from targeted advertising.
`
`14
`
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`15
`
`8.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`16
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works, and that the tool scans videos
`
`17
`
`uploaded to YouTube and comparing them against files previously provided to YouTube by
`
`18
`
`copyright owners. Defendants also admit that an uploaded video that matches copyright material
`
`19
`
`submitted through Content ID may receive a Content ID claim. Defendants further admit that
`
`20
`
`copyright owners who use the Content ID tool can then choose to block that video, license and
`
`21
`
`monetize that video, and/or track viewership statistics. See “How Content ID works,”
`
`22
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`23
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`24
`
`9.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`25
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works. Defendants further admit that
`
`26
`
`YouTube also provides a notice-and-takedown system for the purpose of managing copyrighted
`
`27
`
`works. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-4-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 47
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works; that Content ID screening occurs,
`
`among other times, at the moment a user uploads a video to YouTube; and that such screening
`
`may prevent the public availability of the uploaded video, at the Content ID user’s election.
`
`Defendants further admit that YouTube also provides a notice-and-takedown system for the
`
`purpose of managing copyrighted works. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube assesses “strikes” for copyright violations and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`bans repeat copyright infringers from its platform. Defendants further admit that under
`
`11
`
`YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, Users become eligible to have a copyright strike expire after
`
`12
`
`90 days subject to certain conditions, including completing YouTube’s Copyright School
`
`13
`
`(including passing a quiz) and not accruing 2 or more copyright strikes within the 90-day period.
`
`14
`
`Defendants further admit that the DMCA creates a safe harbor from liability for copyright
`
`15
`
`infringement to which Defendants are entitled. Defendants further admit that a video being
`
`16
`
`identified as a Video Match through Content ID does not satisfy the criteria for an allegation of
`
`17
`
`infringement set forth in Section 512(c) of the DMCA. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`18
`
`allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`19
`
`13.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests sent
`
`20
`
`purporting to be on behalf of Plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC
`
`21
`
`(“Uniglobe”), and AST Publishing Ltd. (“AST”). Defendants further admit that Plaintiffs have
`
`22
`
`not been individually approved to use the Content ID tool. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`23
`
`allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 6 of 47
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`16.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`19.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`with its principal place of business at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, California 94066.
`
`11
`
`Defendants also admit that in 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google and since that purchase
`
`12
`
`YouTube has operated as a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Google. Plaintiffs’
`
`13
`
`allegations regarding operation and control of the YouTube website and that YouTube “conducts
`
`14
`
`business as Google” are vague and ambiguous. As a result, Defendants lack knowledge or
`
`15
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of those allegations. Defendants deny the
`
`16
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 19.
`
`17
`
`20.
`
`Defendants admit that Defendant Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`18
`
`company with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
`
`19
`
`California 94043. Defendants further admit Google has owned and controlled YouTube since
`
`20
`
`late 2006. Plaintiffs’ allegation that “YouTube and Google also combine both products for
`
`21
`
`purposes of Google’s AdWords advertising program....” and its allegation regarding testing of
`
`22
`
`search links are vague and ambiguous. As a result, Defendants lack knowledge or information
`
`23
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of those allegations. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`24
`
`allegations of Paragraph 20.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 7 of 47
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`21.
`
`Defendants admit that the First Amended Complaint purports to assert claims for
`
`copyright infringement, but Defendants deny that the First Amended Complaint alleges adequate
`
`factual or legal predicates for those claims and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube and Google are corporate citizens of the State of
`
`California. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants admit this Court has personal jurisdiction over them for this matter,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`that they are headquartered in this judicial district and transact substantial business and generate
`
`11
`
`revenue in this district. Defendants further admit that YouTube’s physical address for receipt of
`
`12
`
`DMCA takedown requests regarding allegedly infringing content on YouTube is in California
`
`13
`
`and in this district. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`27.
`
`Paragraph 27 sets forth legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
`
`18
`
`extent that a response is required, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`19
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`20
`
`28.
`
`Paragraph 28 sets forth legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
`
`21
`
`extent that a response is required, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`22
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`23
`
`29.
`
`Paragraph 29 sets forth legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
`
`24
`
`extent that a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately summarized
`
`25
`
`the 1976 Copyright Act, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-7-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Defendants admit the allegation that “YouTube, now the world’s most popular
`
`online video site, launched in 2005.” Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants admit that, as a general matter, the video files that users upload to
`
`YouTube are automatically transcoded for safety, security, and accessibility. Defendants further
`
`admit that YouTube generates revenue from its website. Defendants further admit that uploaders
`
`have the option to manually add “tags,” which are descriptive keywords, to their videos. See
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/146402?hl=en. Defendants deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 33 to the extent they purport to characterize how the video file transcoding process
`
`works in all circumstances, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 33.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`34.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides users with an ability to search for and
`
`11
`
`view video content on the YouTube platform in web browsers and on mobile devices.
`
`12
`
`Defendants also admit that searches for content on the YouTube platform will return results (if
`
`13
`
`any) in the form of links to web pages where users can view video content. Defendants further
`
`14
`
`admit that the search results pages and video content web pages on YouTube sometimes contain
`
`15
`
`additional information about that video content, such as the title of the content supplied by the
`
`16
`
`uploader and the number of times that the content has been viewed. Defendants deny the
`
`17
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`18
`
`35.
`
`Defendants admit that the YouTube platform provides users with the optional
`
`19
`
`ability to embed video content on web pages hosted by other web domains. See
`
`20
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en. Defendants further admit that the
`
`21
`
`YouTube platform provides users with the optional ability to share links to video content through
`
`22
`
`a variety of channels, including email messages. See
`
`23
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57741?hl=en&ref_topic=9257102. The ability to
`
`24
`
`embed and share links to video content and the manner in which video content is embedded and
`
`25
`
`shared depends on a variety of conditions, including privacy settings. For instance, users have
`
`26
`
`the option to disable embedding of video content that they have uploaded. Defendants therefore
`
`27
`
`deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 to the extent they purport to describe how the embedding
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-8-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 9 of 47
`
`
`
`and sharing functions work in all circumstances, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`Defendants admit that the YouTube platform may generate recommendations for
`
`video content via computer algorithms depending on a user’s device and settings, and that such
`
`recommendations take into account a variety of factors to enhance user experience. Defendants
`
`admit that YouTube provides an “AutoPlay” feature that users can choose to disable and that the
`
`cited article quotes a YouTube representative as stating: “We also wanted to serve the needs of
`
`people when they didn’t necessarily know what they wanted to look for.” Defendants deny the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39.
`
`Defendants admit that growth in the total number of users and videos is one of
`
`14
`
`many factors that may influence YouTube’s business. Defendants deny the remaining allegations
`
`15
`
`in Paragraph 40.
`
`16
`
`41.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`
`17
`
`Defendants further admit that it requires users to accept its Terms of Service
`
`18
`
`(https://www.youtube.com/static?tgemplate=terms), which incorporate by reference Google’s
`
`19
`
`Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en). Defendants also admit that user
`
`20
`
`engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many factors that may affect advertising
`
`21
`
`spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`22
`
`42.
`
`To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 42 purport to paraphrase and
`
`23
`
`characterize various extrinsic documents, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs do so correctly.
`
`24
`
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42.
`
`25
`
`43.
`
`Defendants admit that Google once provided a service known as Google Video.
`
`26
`
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-9-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Defendants admit that approximately 15 years ago, a low-level Google employee
`
`wrote an email that mischaracterized YouTube’s copyright policy. Defendants further admit that
`
`Google later acknowledged that Google was mistaken about YouTube’s copyright policy.
`
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants admit that “Google purchased YouTube in October 2006 for $1.6
`
`billion.” To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 45 purport to paraphrase and characterize
`
`various extrinsic documents, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs do so correctly. Defendants deny
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants admit that there are “over 500 hours of videos uploaded every
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`minute” to YouTube. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`11
`
`47.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`
`12
`
`Defendants also admit that user engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many
`
`13
`
`factors that may affect advertising spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the
`
`14
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`15
`
`48.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`16
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`17
`
`49.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising, including,
`
`18
`
`as a general matter, a substantial percentage of the revenue generated by advertisements placed
`
`19
`
`on YouTube’s homepage (www.youtube.com) and search results pages. Defendants also admit
`
`20
`
`that user engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many factors that may affect
`
`21
`
`advertising spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`
`22
`
`Paragraph 49.
`
`23
`
`50.
`
`Defendants admit that the YouTube Partner Program allows for monetization of
`
`24
`
`video content. Defendants further admit that together with its creators, YouTube generated
`
`25
`
`approximately $15.1 billion in gross advertising revenue in 2019. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`26
`
`allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-10-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Defendants admit that it requires YouTube users to accept its Terms of Service
`
`(https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms), which incorporate by reference Google’s
`
`Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en). Defendants deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 51 to the extent they mischaracterize those documents. Defendants admit that
`
`YouTube has approximately 2 billion monthly users. Defendants further admit that some of those
`
`users may convey information “concerning their preferences for topics, products, and services”
`
`depending on, among other things, their privacy settings. Defendants admit that the information
`
`provided by YouTube users about their preferences may be used to help YouTube grow its
`
`business (depending on user settings among other factors). Defendants lack knowledge or
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that “Google is now
`
`11
`
`estimated to control 40% of the entire online advertising market”. Defendants deny the
`
`12
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 51.
`
`13
`
`52.
`
`Defendants admit that the DMCA creates a safe harbor from liability for
`
`14
`
`copyright infringement to which Defendants are entitled. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`15
`
`allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`16
`
`53.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`
`17
`
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54.
`
`Defendants deny the allegation in the last two sentences of Paragraph 55.
`
`20
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`21
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`22
`
`56.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`23
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works, and that the tool works by
`
`24
`
`scanning videos uploaded to YouTube and comparing them against files previously provided to
`
`25
`
`YouTube by copyright owners. Defendants also admit that an uploaded video that matches
`
`26
`
`copyright material submitted through Content ID may receive a Content ID claim. Defendants
`
`27
`
`further admit that copyright owners who use the Content ID tool can then choose to block that
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-11-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`video, license and monetize that video, or track viewership statistics. See “How Content ID
`
`works,” https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en. Defendants deny the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 56.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works, and that the tool works by
`
`scanning videos uploaded to YouTube and comparing them against files previously provided to
`
`YouTube by copyright owners. Defendants also admit that an uploaded video that matches
`
`copyright material submitted through Content ID may receive a Content ID claim. Defendants
`
`further admit that copyright owners who use the Content ID tool can then choose to block that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`video, license and monetize that video, or track viewership statistics. See “How Content ID
`
`11
`
`Works,” https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en. Defendants also admit that
`
`12
`
`the quoted language comes from a YouTube Help page, and that it is intended to provide one
`
`13
`
`example of an appropriate use case for the Content ID tool. See “Copyright Management Tools,”
`
`14
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9245819?hl=en. Defendants deny the remaining
`
`15
`
`allegations in Paragraph 57.
`
`16
`
`58.
`
`Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have not been individually approved to use the
`
`17
`
`Content ID tool. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`18
`
`59.
`
`Defendants admit receiving a letter from a handful of congressional members in
`
`19
`
`September 2019 that Plaintiffs have accurately excerpted. Defendants deny that the letter
`
`20
`
`accurately characterizes the functionality of the Content ID tool or the choices available to
`
`21
`
`copyright owners on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`
`22
`
`Paragraph 59.
`
`23
`
`60.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`24
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 60.
`
`25
`
`61.
`
`Defendants admit that certain musical works mentioned in Paragraph 60 of the
`
`26
`
`First Amended Complaint and the accompanying footnote have been posted in full or in part on
`
`27
`
`YouTube by Plaintiff Maria Schneider, her agents, and her licensees. Defendants lack knowledge
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-12-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 61.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants admit that Plaintiff Maria Schneider applied and was rejected for
`
`direct access to the Content ID tool in 2015. Defendants lack knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 62 to the extent that
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Maria Schneider directly applied for the Content ID tool on a second
`
`occasion.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests
`
`purporting to be on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Schneider since 2013. Defendants lack knowledge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that the video content
`
`11
`
`that was the subject of those notices contained her songs or infringed her copyrights, and deny
`
`12
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63.
`
`13
`
`64.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`14
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 64.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`17
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 66.
`
`18
`
`67.
`
`Defendants deny that the English language version of 5 Weddings was registered
`
`19
`
`with the U.S. Copyright Office as a motion picture in October 2016. Defendants lack knowledge
`
`20
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief about the remaining allegations in Paragraph 67.
`
`21
`
`68.
`
`Defendants deny that Americanizing Shelley was registered with the U.S.
`
`22
`
`Copyright Office as a motion picture in March 2006. Defendants lack knowledge or information
`
`23
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the remaining allegations in Paragraph 68.
`
`24
`
`69.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`25
`
`allegations in Paragraph 69.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-13-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 14 of 47
`
`
`
`
`70.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph 70. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 70.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants admit that the English-language version of 5 Weddings and 1 a
`
`Minute motion pictures have been posted in full or in part on YouTube by Plaintiff Uniglobe
`
`Entertainment, LLC, its agents, or its licensees, and have been viewed by YouTube users.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 72.
`
`11
`
`73.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests
`
`12
`
`purporting to be on behalf of from Plaintiff Uniglobe. Defendants lack knowledge or information
`
`13
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 73.
`
`14
`
`74.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`15
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 74.
`
`16
`
`75.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`17
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`18
`
`76.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`19
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 76.
`
`20
`
`77.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests
`
`21
`
`purporting to be on behalf of Plaintiff AST. Defendants further admit that YouTube subsequently
`
`22
`
`removed certain user videos that were the targets of AST’s takedown requests. Defendants lack
`
`23
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that the
`
`24
`
`video content that was the subject of those notices infringed AST’s copyrights, and deny the
`
`25
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 77.
`
`26
`
`78.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`27
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78.
`
`28
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-14-
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-04423-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 160 Filed 08/22/22 Page 15 of 47
`
`
`
`
`79.
`
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests from
`
`Plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe, and AST. Defendants deny the alle