 Judges Cabranes and Livingston reversed Judge Stanton's grant of summary judgment, holding that "a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website" and, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the Veoh case ("UMG v. Shelter Partners"), that the right and ability to control infringing activity need not require knowledge of specific infringements.Thus, the case was again eligible for a jury trial.However, the court upheld one aspect of Stanton's ruling.