- RIAA, NMPA, NBC Universal, and American Federation of Musicians. The RIAA brief argues that Veoh does not qualify for the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor because the infringing activity targeted by UMG was not "by reason of storage at the direction of a user." Id.§512(c)(1). While users upload the videos, Veoh copies and streams them to users -- activities that the brief argues are not protected by the safe harbor. The brief also argues that the district court mangled the analysis of the "right and ability to control" language in Section 512(c)(1)(B), reading it in a manner inconsistent with cases including Napster and Perfect 10 v. CC Bill. Even Prof. Eric Goldman, who hailed Veoh's "terrific win" in the district court, acknowledged that the lower court's "dichotomous language parsing seems particularly unstable."
- ASCAP and BMI. The PROs' brief focuses on the district court's cramped reading of the "red flag" infringement doctrine. 17 USC § 512(c)(1)(A)(ii). As I noted at the time, "Courts, including this one, simply read [the doctrine] so narrowly that, for all intents and purposes, it might as well not even exist." (Though that was before the Columbia v. Fung decision.) And the brief takes issue with the district court's treatment of the DMCA provision that triggers knowledge on the part of the host based on a "representative list" of infringed works. Id. § 512(c)(3)(A)(ii).
- Washington Legal Foundation. The free market legal organization's brief includes a lengthy discussion of the DMCA's legislative history, highlighting lawmakers' statements that the statute was intended to combat widespread Internet infringement -- not protect those who profit from it. It then goes on to attack the district court's rulings on actual and red flag knowledge, and right and ability to control.
Disclosure: I work at NBCU and have written an article for WLF, though I was not involved in filing either of these briefs.