Summary Judgment Statement — 3/18/2010
YouTube was intentionally built on infringement and there are countless internal YouTube communications demonstrating that YouTube's founders and its
employees intended to profit from that infringement. By their own admission, the site contained "truckloads" of infringing content and founder Steve Chen
explained that YouTube needed to "steal" videos because those videos make "our traffic soar."
Google bought YouTube because it was a haven of infringement. Google knew that YouTube's popularity depended on infringing materials with several senior
Google executives warning that YouTube was a "rogue enabler of content theft." Instead of complying with the law, Google willfully and knowingly chose
to continue YouTube's illegal practices.
Google and YouTube had the technology to stop infringement at any time but deliberately chose not to use it. They would only offer to protect Viacom's content
if Viacom agreed to license those works, effectively holding copyright protection as ransom for a license.
The law is clear that Google and YouTube are liable for their infringement. The Supreme Court unanimously held in Grokster that a service that intends infringement
is liable for that infringement. No case has ever suggested that the DMCA immunizes rampant intentional infringement of the sort Google and YouTube have engaged in.
These facts are undisputed. The statements by Google regarding Viacom activities are merely red herrings and have no relevance on the legal facts of this case.