Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Update:
- On March 8, 2021, plaintiff Pirate Monitor voluntarily dismissed itself from the YouTube class action lawsuit, leaving composer Maria Schnieder as the only remaining plaintiff.
Plaintiffs who say that YouTube’s content is a “hotbed” of copyright infringement are “misguided,” according to a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the company.
The lead plaintiffs, a Grammy Award-winning composer Maria Schnieder and a piracy monitoring company Pirate Monitor, accused YouTube and its parent company, Alphabet Inc., of protecting only major studios and record labels under its current copyright enforcement system.
Their class action lawsuit alleges that the creators and owners of copyrighted material are forced to monitor YouTube content for infringement on their own using a “notice-and-takedown process,” while studios and record labels are given access to “Content ID” that makes the removal process more streamlined.
The plaintiffs say YouTube should preemptively remove copyrighted material and provide blocking and digital fingerprinting tools to all copyright owners.
The class action lawsuit claims YouTube and Alphabet are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under its current copyright system that effectively creates two classes of users with different levels of protection.
YouTube Urges Dismissal
YouTube’s parent company shot back in a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit allegations, arguing that it has gone above and beyond its call of duty when it comes to enforcing copyright claims. Alphabet says the use of YouTube’s copyright infringement tools need to be limited because of their power.
“Precisely because YouTube’s novel copyright management tools are so powerful, they must be used with care,” the motion to dismiss explains. “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.”
Alphabet also claims one of the plaintiffs, piracy monitory company Pirate Monitor Ltd., abused YouTube’s anti-piracy tools in violation of the DCMA.
“Pirate Monitor has engaged in widespread abuse of the DMCA 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,” the motion to dismiss states. “This was apparently a ruse to obtain access to Content ID, and when it failed Pirate Monitor responded with this lawsuit.”
In addition, Alphabet points out that although the plaintiff claims she and other users are not provided the tools large studios and record labels have to protect their copyrighted YouTube content, the plaintiff had previously used such tools in the past.
The motion asserts that the plaintiff has not yet asked for the material that allegedly infringes on her copyrighted material to be removed per the “notice-and-removal” provision of the DMCA.
Further, the motion to dismiss notes the plaintiffs failed to identify YouTube content that has a copyright registered with the Copyright Office and that has been infringed on the video-sharing platform.
YouTube also says it is protected by the DMCA’s “safe harbor” that shields it from liability for copyright infringement perpetrated by YouTube users.
Pirate Monitor Exits Suit
Pirate Monitor has voluntarily dismissed itself from the litigation, according to court documents submitted on March 8, 2021.
“Voluntary dismissal without a Court order is proper because all parties have stipulated to this dismissal and signed below,” states the short stipulation of dismissal submitted to the California federal court. “No compensation was paid to Pirate Monitor LTD by Defendants in connection with this voluntary dismissal.”
Lead plaintiff Schneider reportedly remains in the class action, along with her claims that, without access to YouTube’s Content ID system, she must troll the site for copyright violations of her work. Schneider must also face YouTube’s counterclaim made in its earlier motion to dismiss that she has sufficient access to Content ID through her publishing agent.
Are you a YouTube content creator? What do you think of the class action lawsuit claims? Tell us in the comment section below.
The plaintiffs are represented by George A. Zelcs, Randall P. Ewing Jr., Ryan Z. Cortazar, Stephen M. Tillery, Steven M. Berezney, Michael E. Klenov and Carol O’Keefe of Korein Tillery LLC and Joshua Irwin Schiller and Philip C. Korologos of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.
The YouTube Content Class Action Lawsuit is Schneider, et al. v. YouTube LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04423, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
11 thoughts onYouTube Says Piracy Class Action Lawsuit Is ‘Misguided’
Add me please