Judge Louis Stanton
In plaintiffs’ copyright infringement action against YouTube the court denied certification of a putative class comprising every person and entity worldwide whose copyrighted works were (1) repeatedly uploaded after prior infringement was blocked by YouTube (the "repeat infringement class"), or (2) are musical compositions that defendants tracked, monetized or identified and allowed to be used without authority (the "music publisher class"). Quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin the court found the lawsuit’s class aspects a "Frankenstein monster posing as a class action." Despite their superficial similarities the accumulation of copyright claims and "extremely numerous" worldwide claimants into one action would multiply the court’s difficulties over the normal one-by-one adjudication of copyright cases. Further, the claims of any plaintiff were not typical of those of the class. Also, even if 17 USC §512(m)’s "safe harbor" protections were overcome, each member of the "repeat infringement class" and "music publisher class" must show its owns the copyright to the infringed work, that the copying was neither authorized nor a fair use, and the nature and amount of damages.
