Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452
`MAURA L. REES, State Bar No. 191698
`LAUREN GALLO WHITE, State Bar No.
`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
`
`BRIAN M. WILLEN (Pro Hac Vice
`Forthcoming)
`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
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`MARIA SCHNEIDER and PIRATE MONITOR
`)
`CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-04423-JD
`)
`
`LTD, individually and on behalf of all others
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S
`)
`similarly situated,
`)
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`YOUTUBE, LLC; GOOGLE LLC; and
`ALPHABET INC.,
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC;
`
`
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PIRATE MONITOR LTD,
`
`
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-1-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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. Both Pirate Monitor and Maria Schneider complain that they have not been
`allowed access to Content ID. But Pirate Monitor has clearly demonstrated why it cannot be
`trusted to use that tool properly. As set forth In YouTube’s Counterclaims, Pirate Monitor has
`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
`Schneider, she is suing YouTube on copyrighted musical works that she and her agents licensed
`YouTube to use. Not only that, despite Schneider’s claims that she has no access to Content ID,
`her own agent in fact used the tool to generate revenue from those same musical works on her
`behalf. Use of Content ID requires far greater care and candor.
`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
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`(“Google,” and collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer the Complaint (“Complaint.,” Dkt. 1)
`and assert Counterclaims against Plaintiff Pirate Monitor LTD.1
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
`
`To the extent the paragraphs (“Paragraphs”) of the 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 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 Complaint is an overlong narrative with
`lengthy Paragraph after lengthy Paragraph of advocacy. The complex rhetoric and built-in
`assumptions in the Complaint make straightforward responses often impossible.
`Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendants deny any and all allegations as set forth
`in the 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
`Complaint as follows:
`1.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`Plaintiffs' alleged ownership of copyrighted works. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`Paragraph 1.
`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.
`
`
`1 On September 21, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against Defendant Alphabet
`Inc. (Dkt. 33). This Answer and Counterclaims are accordingly made on behalf of Defendants
`YouTube, LLC and Google LLC.
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`in Paragraph 4.
`5.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`6.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 6.
`7.
`Defendants admit that they generate revenue from targeted advertising.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.
`8.
`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 scans 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 video, license and
`monetize that video, and/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 8.
`9.
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides certain users with a tool known as
`“Content ID” for the purpose of managing copyrighted works. 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 9.
`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
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-4-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`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.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 11.
`12.
`Defendants admit that YouTube assesses “strikes” for copyright violations and
`bans repeat copyright infringers from its platform. Defendants admit that the DMCA creates a
`safe harbor from liability for copyright infringement to which Defendants are entitled.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12.
`13.
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests from
`Plaintiff Maria Schneider and from Pirate Monitor LLC. Defendants further admit that Plaintiffs
`have not been individually approved to use the Content ID tool. Defendants deny the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 13.
`14.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`15.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`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.
`DEFENDANTS
`18.
`Defendants admit that YouTube, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
`with its principal place of business at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, California 94066.
`Defendants also admit that in 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google and since that purchase
`YouTube has operated as a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Google. Plaintiffs’
`allegations regarding operation and control of the YouTube website and that YouTube “conducts
`business as Google” are vague and ambiguous. As a result, Defendants lack knowledge or
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-5-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of those allegations. Defendants deny the
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 18.
`19.
`Defendants admit that Defendant Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`company with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
`California 94043. Defendants further admit Google has owned and controlled YouTube since
`late 2006, and that Google is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Alphabet. Plaintiffs’
`allegation that “YouTube and Google also combine both products for purposes of Google’s
`AdWords advertising program....” and its allegation regarding testing of search links are vague
`and ambiguous. As a result, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`about the truth of those allegations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19.
`20.
`Defendants admit that Alphabet Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Defendants
`also admit that Google is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet, and that Google and YouTube
`report revenue through Alphabet. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20.
`JURISDICTION
`21.
`Defendants admit that the Complaint purports to assert claims for copyright
`infringement, but Defendants deny that the Complaint alleges adequate factual or legal
`predicates for those claims and otherwise deny the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`22.
`Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`23.
`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,
`that they are headquartered in this judicial district and transact substantial business and generate
`revenue in this district. Defendants further admit that YouTube’s physical address for receipt of
`DMCA takedown requests regarding allegedly infringing content on YouTube is in California
`and in this district. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-6-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`
`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
`extent that a response is required, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`28.
`Paragraph 28 sets forth legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
`extent that a response is required, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`belief about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`29.
`Paragraph 29 sets forth legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
`extent that a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately summarized
`the 1976 Copyright Act, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.
`30.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`31.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`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 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.
`34.
`Defendants admit that YouTube provides users with an ability to search for and
`view video content on the YouTube platform in web browsers and on mobile devices.
`Defendants also admit that searches for content on the YouTube platform will return results (if
`any) in the form of links to web pages where users can view video content. Defendants further
`admit that the search results pages and video content web pages on YouTube sometimes contain
`additional information about that video content, such as the title of the content supplied by the
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-7-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`uploader and the number of times that the content has been viewed. Defendants deny the
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 34.
`35.
`Defendants admit that the YouTube platform provides users with the optional
`ability to embed video content on web pages hosted by other web domains. See
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en. Defendants further admit that the
`YouTube platform provides users with the optional ability to share links to video content through
`a variety of channels, including email messages. See
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/57741?hl=en&ref_topic=9257102. The ability to
`embed and share links to video content and the manner in which video content is embedded and
`shared depends on a variety of conditions, including privacy settings. For instance, users have
`the option to disable embedding of video content that they have uploaded. Defendants therefore
`deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 to the extent they purport to describe how the embedding
`and sharing functions work in all circumstances, and deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`35.
`
`36.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`37.
`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
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 37.
`38.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`39.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39.
`40.
`Defendants admit that growth in the total number of users and videos is one of
`many factors that may influence YouTube’s business. Defendants deny the remaining allegations
`in Paragraph 40.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-8-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`
`41.
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`Defendants further admit that it requires users to accept its Terms of Service
`(https://www.youtube.com/static?tgemplate=terms), which incorporate by reference Google’s
`Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en). Defendants also admit that user
`engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many factors that may affect advertising
`spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41.
`42.
`To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 42 purport to paraphrase and
`characterize various extrinsic documents, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs do so correctly.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42.
`43.
`Defendants admit that Google once provided a service known as Google Video.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43.
`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 2005 for $1.6
`billion.” To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 42 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
`minute” to YouTube. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`47.
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`Defendants also admit that user engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many
`factors that may affect advertising spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`48.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-9-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`
`49.
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising, including,
`as a general matter, a substantial percentage of the revenue generated by advertisements placed
`on YouTube’s homepage (www.youtube.com) and search results pages. Defendants also admit
`that user engagement with video content on YouTube is one of many factors that may affect
`advertising spend on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`Paragraph 49.
`50.
`Defendants admit that the YouTube Partner Program allows for monetization of
`video content. Defendants further admit that together with its creators, YouTube generated
`approximately $15.1 billion in gross advertising revenue in 2019. Defendants deny the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 50.
`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
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that “Google is now
`estimated to control 40% of the entire online advertising market”. Defendants deny the
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 51.
`52.
`Defendants admit that the DMCA creates a safe harbor from liability for
`copyright infringement to which Defendants are entitled. Defendants deny the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 52.
`53.
`Defendants admit that YouTube generates revenue through advertising.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-10-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`
`54.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54.
`55.
`Defendants deny the allegation in the final sentence of Paragraph 55. Defendants
`lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 55.
`56.
`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
`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
`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 also admit that
`the quoted language comes from a YouTube Help page, and that it is intended to provide one
`example of an appropriate use case for the Content ID tool. See “Copyright Management Tools,”
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9245819?hl=en. Defendants deny the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 57.
`58.
`Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have not been individually approved to use the
`Content ID tool. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-11-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`
`59.
`Defendants admit receiving a letter from a handful of congressional members in
`September 2019 that Plaintiffs have accurately excerpted. Defendants deny that the letter
`accurately characterizes the functionality of the Content ID tool or the choices available to
`copyright owners on the YouTube platform. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`Paragraph 59.
`60.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 60.
`61.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the 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 is aware of having received multiple DMCA
`takedown requests from Plaintiff Maria Schneider since 2013. Defendants lack knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief about the validity of those requests or the truth of the
`allegation that the video content that was the subject of those notices contained her songs or
`infringed her copyrights.
`64.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 64.
`65.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 65.
`66.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 66.
`67.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 67.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-12-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`
`68.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 68.
`69.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 69.
`70.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 70.
`71.
`Defendants admit that Plaintiff Pirate Monitor LTD has not been approved to use
`the Content ID tool. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 71.
`72.
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests from
`Pirate Monitor LLC. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 72, including whether the DMCA takedown requests
`received by YouTube were valid or whether they pertained to content that actually infringed
`copyrights.
`73.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 73.
`74.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 74.
`75.
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 75. Defendants admit that YouTube has received
`DMCA takedown requests from Plaintiff Maria Schneider and from Pirate Monitor LLC.
`Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 75.
`76.
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests from
`Plaintiff Maria Schneider and from Pirate Monitor LLC. Defendants deny the allegation that they
`were “aware of prior infringement concerning these very same works” that were the purported
`subject of the DMCA takedown requests received by YouTube. Defendants deny the allegation
`that they “repeatedly allowed further infringing videos (often the exact same videos) to be
`publicly performed, displayed, reproduced, or distributed”. Defendants lack knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief about the remaining allegations in Paragraph 76.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-13-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`
`77.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77.
`78.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 78.
`79.
`Paragraph 79 is a legal conclusion that purports to characterize Section 1202 of
`the DMCA. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny that Paragraph 79
`accurately characterizes Section 1202.
`80.
`Defendants deny the allegation “that Defendants and their business model and
`systems routinely ignore ... CMI.” Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
`a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 80.
`81.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 81.
`82.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 82.
`83.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 83.
`84.
`Defendants admit that the DMCA creates a safe harbor from liability for
`copyright infringement to which they are entitled. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
`Paragraph 84.
`85.
`Defendants admit that the DMCA creates a safe harbor from liability for
`copyright infringement to which they are entitled. To the extent that Paragraph 85 purports to
`recite the provisions of the DMCA, Defendants deny that it does so accurately or completely and
`otherwise deny the allegations of Paragraph 85.
`86.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 86.
`87.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 87.
`88.
`Defendants admit that the DMCA requires the adoption and implementation of a
`repeat infringer policy. Defendants further admit that YouTube assesses “strikes” for copyright
`violations and that YouTube has adopted and reasonably implemented a policy that provides for
`the termination in appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers. Defendants deny the remaining
`allegations in Paragraph 88.
`89.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 89.
`90.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 90.
`
`YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE’S ANSWER
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`-14-
`
`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 34 Filed 09/21/20 Page 15 of 34
`
`
`
`
`91.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 91.
`92.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 92.
`93.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 93.
`94.
`Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 94.
`95.
`Defendants admit that YouTube has received DMCA takedown requests