financial benefits: the court decided that Vimeo’s control tactics were not pervasive enough to induce or influence its users to upload copyrighted material. Expeditious removal: The court found that Vimeo had removed the infringing videos expeditiously at plaintiffs' request. Pre-1972 Recordings The court shared the plaintiffs' view that the DMCA safe harbors did not apply to recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, but declined to extend the DMCA protections, stating this was a policy matter that should be resolved by the Congress. Therefore, the court held that any infringing video-in-suit recorded prior to 1972 was not eligible for safe harbor protection. December 2013 Order On December 31, the court decided that: 1) Vimeo was entitled to summary judgment as to seventeen more videos related to the case. Fifteen of them were uploaded by "Plus" users, who accounted for 36% of the 43,000 new videos uploaded daily to the website. The court reasoned that the sheer number of these users made it unrealistic to believe that employees watched every one of their uploaded videos. As to two other videos that played copyrighted songs for a short time in the background, the court concluded that the infringement was not “obvious to a reasonable person”, leaving room for a fair use defense. 2) The court also allowed Plaintiffs to add other instances of infringement to the suit, many related to songs recorded before February 15, 1972 or to videos that Vimeos interacted with. 3) Finally, the court certified questions raised by the defendant, which means that : "(a) Whether the DMCA's safe-harbor provisions are applicable to sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972; and (b) Whether, under Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., a service provider's viewing of a user-generated video containing all or virtually all of a recognizable, copyrighted song may establish 'facts or circumstances' giving rise to 'red flag' knowledge of infringement." Significance and reactions The case has generated different reactions from reviewers. Justin E. Pierce and Matthew R. Farley have argued that cases like this help shed light on the fine-tuning of online service providers' rights, obligations and potential eligibility for safe harbor protection. In their analysis of the September 2013 Order, they pointed out some implications to providers of streaming video: "Don’t hedge on a copyright enforcement policy, and put it front and center. (...); Actions speak louder than words. (...); Streaming media companies should manage how their