Lecture5SecondaryLiabilitySony/Napster/GroksterSafeHarborsunder512TypicalSecondaryLiabilityProblemAnselAdams(AA)wasanextraordinarilypopularlandscapephotographer.LandscapeScene(LS)managesAA’scopyrights,andhasstartedabusinessallowingpeopletodownload(forafee)copiesofAA’sphotographs,foravarietyofuses:desktopimages,greetingcards,etc.LShasdiscoveredthatthereareotherwebsitesthatallowuserstodothesamething,atacheaperprice.Infact,therearenumerouswebsitesthathostunauthorizedhighresolutioncopiesofAA’sphotographs.AdamsWants2BFisabrokerforunauthorizeddownloadsofAdams’photographs.AdamsWants2BFlocatestheAAphotographsthatarehostedon3rd-partywebsites,andsortsthemaccordingtotheirsuitabilityforparticularuses.AdamsWants2BFreechargesusersafee,processedthoughcreditcardpayments,foraccesstothesethirdpartysites,andthensharestheincomewiththosesitesSonyCorp.ofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,464U.S.417(1984)DefendantmanufacturedhomevideorecordersPlaintiffsownedthecopyrightintelevisionprogrammesthatarebroadcastonpublicairwaves.PlaintiffsuedDefendant,arguingthatdefendantwassecondarilyliablefortheprimaryinfringementsofindividualswhorecordedTVprogrammes.InSony,theSupremeCourtfoundinfavourofthedefendants.“Constructiveknowledge”cannotsupportindirectinfringement,whereadeviceiscapableofsubstantialnon-infringinguses.“…[we]muststrikeabalancebetweenacopyrightholder’slegitimatedemandforeffective-notmerelysymbolic-protectionofthestatutorymonopoly,andtherightsofothersfreelytoengageinsubstantiallyunrelatedareasofcommerce.”Problemofdual-usetechnologies:InSonythecourtistryingtoavoidextendingtherightsofcopyrightownerstothedeviceitselfIfadeviceiscapableofsubstantialnon-infringinguses,actualknowledgeoftheinfringingactivityisrequiredDistinguishingSonyA&MRecords,Inc.v.Napster,239F.3d1004(9thCir.2001)InNapster,thedefendantshadactualknowledgeoftheinfringements[ButinSony,surveysshowedsubstantialuseofVCRsforarchiving;advertisingtoutedabilitytousethesystemforthesepurposesandstilltheSupremeCourtrefusedtocharacterizethisasactualknowledge]Napster:VLNapsterholdingonVL:Napsterhadthenecessarycontrolbecauseitcouldblockusersfromthesystem.Availabilityof?protectedfilesincreasedtheattractivenessofthesystem.Napstercouldescapeliabilityifitpolicedtheservicetothefullestextentpossible.NapsterdistinguishedbyCourtofAppealinGroksterContributoryLiabilityNapsterhadactualknowledgeofspecificactsofinfringementGrokster’sarchitecturedidnotprovideknowledgeofspecificinfringementsGrokster’ssoftwarewascapableofsubstantiallynon-infringinguses,which,underSonymakesconstructiveknowledgeinsufficientNapsterdistinguishedbyCAinGroksterVicariousLiabilityNapsterhadtheopportunitytocontrolGrokster’ssoftwareallowednosuchopportunitytocontrolSupremeCourtresponseMetro-Goldwyn-MayerStudiesInc.v.Grokster,Ltd.,125S.Ct.2764(2005)Sonyleftintact:“wedonotrevisitSonyfurther”Sonydoesnotpreventimpositionofliabilitywheretheevidencegoesbeyondmeresaleofdevicecapableofsubstantialnon-infringinguses.WhenwillliabilitybeimposedunderGrokster?“...onewhodistributesadevicewiththeobjectofpromotingitsusetoinfringecopyright,asshownbyclearexpressionorotheraffirmativestepstakentofosterinfringement,isliablefortheresultingactsofinfringementbythirdparties.”Grokster“factors”goingtointent1. Aimingtosatisfyaknownsourceofdemandforinfringingactivity,combinedwithadvertising2.Noattempttodevelopfilteringtools3.Sellingofadvertisingspace:businessmodelturnsonhighvolumeuse,whichtherecordshowstobeinfringing.FN12.Ofcourse,intheabsenceofotherevidenceofintent,acourtwouldbeunabletofindcontributoryinfringementliabilitymerelybasedonafailuretotakeaffirmativestepstopreventinfringement,ifthedeviceotherwisewascapableofsubstantialnoninfringinguses.SuchaholdingwouldtreadtooclosetotheSony“safeharbor”.

Ginsburg/BreyeronSony“Capableofsubstantiallynon-infringinguses”Ginsburg:overwhelminguseforinfringingpurposes;relativeimportanceofinfringing/non-infringingusesBreyer:noliabilityunlessuseisalmostexclusivelytoinfringe.Lawleansinfavorofprotectingtechnology.AristaRecordsLLCv.LimeGroupLLC715F.Supp.2d481(S.D.N.Y.2010)ApplicationofGrokster“inducement”theoryofliabilitytostatecommonlawclaimsforcopyrightinfringementCaseinvolvedpre-1972soundrecordingcopyrights(pre-1972federallawdoesnotattach,butstatecommonlawmight)Here,NewYorklawapplied.CompanyandofficersliableforcommonlawcopyrightinfringementPerfect10v.VisaInternationalService,Ass’n,494F.3d788(9thCir.2007)PlaintiffownedcopyrightinphotographicimagesItsueddefendantcreditcardcompaniesforfacilitatingaccesstounlicensedcopiesofitscopyright-protectedimagesTheCourtofAppealsheldthatthecreditcardcompaniesdidnotmateriallycontributetotheinfringementsImageswerenotphysicallylocatedondefendants’websiteNordidthedefendants’systemenablesearchesforthematerialTheCourtofAppealsalsoheldthatthecreditcardcompaniesdidnothavetherightandabilitytocontroltheprimaryinfringers(individualswhoaccessedtheinfringingimages)NorightorabilitytocontrolaccesstothematerialInPerfect10,theCourtofAppealswastryingtodistinguishbetweenpartiesthatareactivelyinvolvedintheinfringements,andparties(likeCreditCardcompanies)thatmerelyfacilitatetheinfringements.ItprovokedaverystrongdissentfromtheChiefJustice(KozinskiJ.)StatutorysolutionstoSecondaryLiabilityIssues:TitleIIDMCA

OnlineCopyrightInfringementLiabilityLimitationAct(OCILLA).

S.512“safeharbor”NomonetaryreliefLimitsinjunctionss.512(j)Q:Whathappensifthesafeharbordoesnotapply?Noliabilityfornon-compliancePlaintiffmustestablishliabilityon“commonlaw”grounds(vicariousorcontributoryliabilityorinducement)“[O]neofthestatedpurposesof[theDMCA]wasto‘facilitatetherobustdevelopmentandworldwideexpansionofelectroniccommerce,communications,research,development,andeducationinthedigitalage.’”Perfect10,Inc.v.VisaInt'lServiceAss'n,494F.3d788,794n.2(9thCir.2007)(quotingS.Rep.105-190,at1-2(1998)).StatutorysolutionstoSecondaryLiabilityIssues:TitleIIDMCA(cont.)The“safeharbours”applyto4differentcategoriesofaction:1.TransitoryDigitalNetworkCommunications:512(a)2.SystemCaching:512(b)3.StoringofInformationatDirectionofUsers:512(c)4.InformationLocationTools:512(d)Notice,Takedown,PutBack:NoticeservedbycopyrightownerthatinfringingmaterialisbeingstoredInwritingSignedby?owneroragentISPobligedto“actexpeditiously”toremove/blockaccesstoinfringingmaterialISPmustthennotifysubscriberthatthematerialhasbeenblockedUsercanfilecounternoticewithISPInwritingSignedbysubscriberStatementgivinggrounds(underpenaltyofperjury)Contactdetails,andsubmissiontojurisdictionofDCISPcommunicatescounternoticeto?ownerandsaysthatmaterialwillbereplacedin10daysISPmustreplacematerialw/10daysunless?infringementactionfiledagainstsubscriber:s.512(g)(2)GeneralConditions:512(i)TheISPmustadopt,implement,andinformsubscribersofapolicyprovidingforterminationofrepeatinfringersinappropriatecircumstancesEllisonv.Robertson,357F.3d1072(9thCir.2004):The

notices“fellintoavacuum”NooperativeemailaddressCorbisv.A,351F.Supp.2d1090(W.D.Wash.2004):Thereneedstobeevidence,additionaltonoticesthemselves,thatthematerialisinfringing;Needstoshowthattheinfringer’ssiteis“clearlyapiratesite”U.S.courtshavemostlyassumedthattheDMCAsafeharboursforISPsappliestoweb2.0servicesLegislativehistorysuggeststhattheintentionwasthattheDMCAwouldapplyonlytointernet“backbone”firms(traditionalISPS)CompareAustralia–whereitisclearthattheprovisionsweremeanttoapplytotraditionalInternetServiceProvidersUMGRecordings,Inc.v.VeohNetworks,Inc.,655F.Supp.2d1099(C.D.Cal.2009)Since2007,Veohuseddigitalfingerprintingtechnology.Ittestedvideosuploadedtothewebsiteagainstadatabaseofdigitalfingerprintssuppliedbycopyrightowners.ItdidnotallowvideostobeuploadedthatincludedthedigitalfingerprintsUMGarguedthatVeohwasnotcomplyingwith512(i)becauseitdidnotblockuserswhouploadedvideosincludingthedigitalfingerprintsThecourtheldthatthisdidnottakeVeohoutsidethe“safeharbor”becauseithadnotwayofverifyinghowUMGconstructeditsdatabaseandfingerprintingsystem.

ViacomInternationalInc.v.YouTube,Inc.,_F.Supp.2d_2010WL2532404(S.D.N.Y.2010)24-hoursofnewvideouploadedtoYouTubeeveryminutePlaintiffarguedt