NO. 10-55946UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITCOLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.
et al
.,P
LAINTIFFS
-A
PPELLEES
,
V
.GARY FUNG and ISOHUNT WEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,D
EFENDANTS
-A
PPELLANTS
.On Appeal From The United States District CourtFor The Central District of CaliforniaCase No. 06-cv-5578Honorable Stephen V. Wilson District Judge
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATIONIN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
Corynne McSherry(SBN 221504)Daniel Nazer (
on the brief
)(SBN 257380)ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION815 Eddy StreetSan Francisco, CA 94109Telephone: (415) 436-9333Facsimile: (415) 436-9993corynne@eff.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Case: 10-55946 04/15/2013 ID: 8589884 DktEntry: 67 Page: 1 of 18
i
DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS ANDOTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST INLITIGATION
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amicuscuriae Electronic Frontier Foundation states that it does not have a parentcorporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of amicus.
Case: 10-55946 04/15/2013 ID: 8589884 DktEntry: 67 Page: 2 of 18
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................................................................. 1INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3I.
Copyright Law and Policy Must Balance the Public Interests inPromoting Both Innovation and Creativity. ............................................... 3II.
The Panel Opinion Adopts an Unworkable Inducement Standard thatFosters Uncertainty and Will Chill Innovation .......................................... 5A. The Panel Opinion Confusingly Misapplies
Grokster
andDeparts from Well-Established Principles of Inducement andCausation. ................................................................................... 6B. Analogous Patent Cases Apply the Inducement Rule Correctlyand Show that a Defendant Can Only Be Held Liable for Infringement Caused by the Inducing Acts. ............................... 8C. The Panel Opinion’s Loose Causation Standard Will BeImpossible for District Courts to Apply in Practice. .................. 9D. The Panel Can Dispel Unnecessary Confusion by SimplyApplying Grokster. ................................................................... 10CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 11
Case: 10-55946 04/15/2013 ID: 8589884 DktEntry: 67 Page: 3 of 18
