2008), is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films.

[2] In addition to the user-generated content, such as family gatherings, films by aspiring filmmakers, and job interviews, Veoh also hosts a number of videos that have been uploaded by users other than the copyright owner.

However, Veoh has also received a number of takedown notices related to allegedly copyrighted material posted to the company's site.

You agree to indemnify and hold Veoh harmless from and against any liability, claims, losses, demands or damages arising out of or relating to your violation of these Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy.

[10] IO Group noticed that ten of its films were available on veoh.com in varying lengths from six seconds to around forty minutes.

[11] Around this same point in time, Veoh had independently determined that it would no longer allow adult content on its site.

Nor did IO dispute that Veoh adopted and informed its end users of a policy regarding repeat infringers.

While the DMCA does not explicitly define what reasonably implemented means, the Court was able to look to the binding precedent set by the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th 2007).

In that case, the Ninth Circuit defined Reasonable to mean "if, under 'appropriate circumstances,' the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe copyright.

They believed that Veoh's policy came up short because it did not prevent terminated users from re-registering with a different e-mail address.

[19] IO argued that Veoh should be held to a standard where they track users by their actual names or their IP Address.

[19] Instead, the Court pointed out that the DMCA provisions only require that the service provider terminate the account of a repeat infringer when appropriate.

After passing the threshold requirements, the Court turned to § 512(c)'s provision that prevents service provider liability where copyright infringement occurs as a result of the storage of the infringing material residing on the service providers system or network at the direction of a user.

[26] Thus, the Court concluded that Veoh was not disqualified from § 512(c)'s Safe Harbor due to its automated process in response to user-submitted material.

While one of them contained IO's trademark several minutes into the clip, it didn't rise to a level of awareness to impute knowledge of infringement.

"[30] While Veoh had created policies governing its systems, the pertinent question focuses on control of the infringing activity.

[31] Additionally, in the context of the internet, the control elements extends beyond the ability of merely deleting the content from the service provider's server because it would be inconsistent to require an act that would also eliminate the Safe Harbor at the same time.

And even assuming for the sake of argument that Veoh had the capacity to review the hundreds of thousands of videos, there is no guarantee that they would be able to distinguish infringing material from non-infringing.

[34] Even IO had difficulties identifying the videos it owned rights to as it dropped one title and added three more to its list of infringing works during the course of discovery.

For instance, one author has suggested that the Court may have come to a different conclusion if the practical limitations of identifying infringing content through the use of simple text searches.

[39] Thus, once technology evolves to the point where it becomes feasible to search the video content itself, the IO Court may come to a different conclusion.

[43] Indeed, Viacom actually intervened in the Veoh litigation and asked the court's permission to file an amicus curiae brief.