Don't forget the Premier League v. YouTube case

Lost in all the attention paid to the briefs filed last week by Viacom and YouTube is the fact that there is a separate, though similar, copyright case pending against YouTube in the same court, filed by the English Premier soccer league and a number of other sports leagues and music publishers. Those plaintiffs -- who are also seeking class action status -- filed their own brief, asking the court to rule that Section 512 of the DMCA does not provide a safe harbor to YouTube. While the Premier League's brief is similar to Viacom's, there are differences, including the fact that these plaintiffs -- unlike Viacom -- are alleging infringement post-May 2008. See Br. at 3 n.1. Also keep in mind that YouTube's much-discussed evidence that Viacom itself uploaded videos to YouTube does not affect these other plaintiffs, at least not directly. (YouTube filed the same summary judgment motion against both Viacom and the Premier League plaintiffs.)

Separately, the Premier League plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due March 26, YouTube's opposition May 7, and plaintiffs' reply June 11. Those papers should be unsealed about 10 days after each filing.

Here's what I believe is a full list of the plaintiffs in this case:

• The Music Force LLC
• Cal IV Entertainment, LLC
• Cherry Lane Music Publishing Company, Inc.
• The Football Association Premier League Limited
• Robert Tur
• National Music Publishers' Association
• The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization
• Edward B. Marks Music Company
• Freddy Bienstock Music Company
• Alley Music Corporation
• X-Ray Dog Music, Inc.
• Federation Francaise De Tennis
• The Scottish Premier League Limited
• The Music Force Media Group LLC
• Sin-Drome Records, Ltd.
• Murbo Music Publishing, Inc.
• Bourne Co.