Thus, it reasoned, Vimeo can be considered an online service provider. Whether or not Vimeo had adopted a repeated infringement policy: Vimeo's repeated infringement policy was clearly stated in its terms of use, and supported by emails that show employees did terminate accounts based on infringement. The court held this was enough to show adoption. Whether or not Vimeo had informed users of the policy: This criterion requires the service provider to notify users that they face termination of their use of the service if they repeatedly violate copyright laws. The court determined that Vimeo required registered users to agree not to infringe one another's copyrights, informed users that their accounts could be terminated if the agreement was violated, and provided contact information for Vimeo's DMCA agent. Whether or not Vimeo reasonably implemented the policy: The plaintiffs claimed that Vimeo's implementation was inadequate because it banned email addresses, not IP addresses, and that its treatment of notices received within a three-day period as single instances of infringement was too lenient. However, the court determined that the implementation need not be perfect, only reasonable, and that Vimeo met this requirement. Whether or not Vimeo's policies interfered with "standard technical measures" of identifying and protecting copyrighted works: The court determined that although Vimeo's privacy policy did make it more difficult for copyright holders to collect information regarding their works, it did not specifically interfere with technical measures. Based on this, the court determined that Vimeo met the threshold requirement for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. Safe Harbor Requirements As to whether Vimeo qualified for a safe harbor pursuant to §512(c), the District Court discussed several factors: Storage at the direction of a user: 10 of the 199 videos had been uploaded by users who were or became Vimeo's employees. The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether they stored the content as "users" or as employees acting on behalf of Vimeo. Knowledge of infringement: 2.a) Some employees had interacted with 55 of 199 infringing videos (by liking, commenting, or reviewing). There was a triable issue as to whether Vimeo acquired "actual or red flag knowledge" of the infringing videos due to these actions by their employees; 2.b) A series of emails by Vimeo employees commenting on or ignoring infringing content was insufficient to establish "willful blindness" on the part of Vimeo. Ability to control infringing content with