I just noticed this and haven’t had time to read it, but here it is. Here’s the first paragraph:
Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Louis L. Stanton, Judge), granting summary judgment to the defendants-appellees on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement based on a finding that the defendants-appellees were entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (â€œDMCAâ€), 17 U.S.C. Â§ 512. Although the District Court correctly held that the Â§ 512(c) safe harbor requires knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, we vacate the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website. We further hold that the District Court erred by interpreting the â€œright and ability to controlâ€ infringing activity to require â€œitem-specificâ€ knowledge. Finally, we affirm the District Courtâ€™s holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fall within the safe harbor for infringement that occurs â€œby reason ofâ€ storage at the direction of the user, and remand for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.