The case of UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.^2569 involved the same user-
generated content site, Veoh Networks, as the case described in the previous subsection. The
plaintiffs, who owned rights to copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions allegedly
used without authorization in user-submitted videos to the site, sought summary judgment that
Veoh was not entitled to the Section 512(c) safe harbor because of four functions performed by
Veoh’s software that the plaintiffs claimed were not “storage” and were not undertaken “at the
direction of the user”: automatically creating Flash formatted copies of video files uploaded by
users, automatically creating copies of uploaded video files that are comprised of smaller chunks
of the original file, allowing users to access uploaded videos via streaming, and allowing users to
access uploaded videos by downloading whole video files. The court denied the plaintiff’s
motion.^2570
The court noted that the IoGroup case had held that Section 512(c) was applicable to the
creation of Flash formatted files, but the applicability of Section 512(c) to the other three
challenged software functions was a question of first impression.^2571 Although the plaintiffs
conceded that all four challenged software functions were directed toward facilitating access to
materials stored at the direction of users, they argued that Section 512(c) requires that the service
provider’s conduct be storage, and that the storage be at the direction of a user. The court
rejected this argument, finding that the safe harbor extends to functions other than mere storage,
since the statutory language applies to “infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the
direction of a user.”^2572 When copyrighted content was displayed or distributed on Veoh’s
system it was by reason of or attributable to the fact that users uploaded the content to Veoh’s
servers to be accessed by other means.^2573 The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment, concluding:
The four software functions that UMG challenges fall within the scope of §
512(c), because all of them are narrowly directed toward providing access to
material stored at the direction of users. Both the conversion of uploaded files
into Flash format and the “chunking” of uploaded files are undertaken to make it
easier for users to view and download movies, and affect only the form and not
the content of the movies; “streaming” and downloading merely are two
technically different means of accessing uploaded videos.^2574Following this ruling, Veoh moved for summary judgment that it had satisfied the
remaining requirements of Section 512(c) and was therefore not liable for monetary or injunctive
(^2569) 620 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d sub nom. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC,
718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013).
(^2570) Id. at 1083.
(^2571) Id.
(^2572) Id. at 1088 (emphasis added).
(^2573) Id. at 1088-89.
(^2574) Id. at 1092.