Section 512 Study

US Copyright Office, here. 

Converging Standards of Protection from Secondary Liability for Trademark and Copyright Infringement Online

M. Peguera, here. 

Viacom and Google settle long running copyright lawsuit against YouTube

TheVerge.com, here.

US Judiciary Hearing on notice and takedown provisions under the DMCA

Written testimonies here.

Google Amicus Brief in Disney v. Hotfile

Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al.,  Case No. 11-20427-Civ here.

Google's Amicus Curiae in a BitTorrent search engine case

Here. 

VIACOM V. YOUTUBE: A PROVING GROUND FOR DMCA SAFE HARBORS AGAINST SECONDARY LIABILITY

Brett White, here.

Viacom v Google on the Interpretation of DMCA "safe harbor" provision

Here. As the U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton put it, "the critical question is whether the statutory phrases “actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing,” and “facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent” in § 512(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) mean a general awareness that there
are infringements (here, claimed to be widespread and common), or rather mean actual or constructive knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items".
According to the judge, "if a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a “red flag”) of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material. If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is “ubiquitous” does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements."

On DMCA Safe Harbors and Liability for Copyright Infringements

Whose Burden Is It Anyway? Addressing the Needs of Content Owners in DMCA Safe Harbors, by Greg Jansen, 62 Federal Communications Law Journal 153