- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Flipboard
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
- Share this article on Linkedin
- Share this article on Pinit
- Share this article on Reddit
- Share this article on Tumblr
- Share this article on Whatsapp
- Share this article on Print
- Share this article on Comment
EXCLUSIVE: Earlier this year, Viacom suffered a bad defeat at the hands of Google when a New York district court judge ruled that YouTube qualified for “safe harbor” from claims of direct and contributory copyright infringement. Viacom is determined to have better success at the appellate level.
The entertainment company has hired Theodore Olson, one of the most esteemed appellate lawyers in the country, for the second round of this battle.
Olson was Solicitor General of the United States from 2001 to 2004. Afterwards, he rejoined the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where’s he’s argued dozens of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His notable victories include Bush v. Gore, which paved the path to the presidency of George W. Bush, as well as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision earlier this year at a federal district court in San Francisco that overturned California’s ban on same sex marriages.
The first job for Viacom’s new star lawyer will be preparing Viacom’s appeal, which the company plans to file on December 3.
To that end, Viacom has already scored a small victory.
Three weeks ago, Google submitted a motion to consolidate the appeals of both Viacom and a class action of plaintiffs led by the U.K. Premier League, which was separately pursuing copyright infringement claims against YouTube. Google asked the 2nd Circuit to consolidate the briefing and argument so as to “spare the parties needless duplication of effort and make the Court’s consideration of these appeals easier.”
Viacom strenuously objected to the motion. It didn’t mind having an appeals court consider the two appeals in tandem, but loathed the idea it would be forced to file just one brief in coordination with the Premier League class. Viacom argued that the move would would “prejudice” the court because of factual and legal differences in each of the cases and that the consolidation “would require Viacom to reassess strategic decisions relating to its brief and require significant negotiations and coordination with the Class.”
On Monday, the 2nd Circuit confirmed that the case would be consolidated and heard in tandem, but that each of the parties would be given the opportunity to file their own briefs.
Meaning, that on December 3, expect to see no more than 14,000 words of arguments from Viacom, arguing why the district court made an error giving YouTube “safe harbor” and ignoring the video-sharing website’s liability for direct infringement.
The time table also puts 2nd Circuit oral hearings on track to be heard next summer.
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day