EFF: OPG MSJ

1

C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997)Wendy Seltzer, Esq.ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108Facsimile: (415) 436-9993Alan Korn, Esq. (SBN 167933)LAW OFFICE OF ALAN KORN1840 Woolsey StreetBerkeley, CA 94703Telephone: (510) 548-7300Facsimile: (510) 540-4821Attorneys for Plaintiff ONLINE POLICY GROUPJennifer Stisa Granick, Esq. (SBN 168423)STANFORD LAW SCHOOLCYBERLAW CLINIC559 Nathan Abbott WayStanford, CA 94305-8610Telephone: (650) 724-0014Facsimile: (650) 723-4426Attorneys for PlaintiffsNELSON CHU PAVLOSKY and LUKETHOMAS SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ONLINE POLICY GROUP, NELSON CHUPAVLOSKY, and LUKE THOMAS SMITH,Plaintiffs,v.DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, and DIEBOLDELECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,Defendants.)))))))))))))No. C-03-04913 JF

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT

Date: February 9, 2004Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 3TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 9, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter asthe matter may be heard before the Honorable Jeremy Fogel, United States District Judge, inCourtroom 3, 5

th

Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiffs Online Policy Group,

2

C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Nelson Chu Pavlosky and Luke Thomas Smith will and hereby do move for summary judgment ontheir First Amended Complaint.Plaintiffs seek an order granting them damages and declaratory relief for tortiousinterference with contractual relations (Count I); declaratory relief for misuse of copyright (CountII); declaratory relief and damages for misrepresentation of copyright infringement under theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 512(f) (Count III); and declaratory judgmentof non-infringement and non-liability for “tertiary” and “quaternary” copyright infringement(Count IV). Plaintiffs also seek costs and attorneys fees in this action.The motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declarations of David Weekly, Asheesh Laroia, Cindy Cohn andNelson Pavlosky filed herewith; and the papers, records, and pleadings on file in this case. Themotion is made on the ground that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that Plaintiffsare entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on all claims of their complaint.DATED: January 12, 2004ByCindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997)Wendy Seltzer, Esq.ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108Facsimile: (415) 436-9993Attorneys for Plaintiff ONLINE POLICY GROUP

-i-

C-03-04913 JF PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESTABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1II. STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................2A. The Electronic Voting Machine Controversy and Diebold’s Role in It..................................2B. The Diebold E-mail Archive...................................................................................................2C. The Plaintiffs...........................................................................................................................5D. Diebold’s Cease-and-Desist Letters........................................................................................5III. ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................................8A. Summary Judgment Should be Granted That Plaintiffs’ Conduct Was Fair and Non-Infringing.................................................................................................................................9B. Posting of the E-mail Archive Is Fair Use...............................................................................91. Plaintiffs’ Purpose is Non-Commercial and Transformative..............................................92. Factual Works Are Only Thinly Protected........................................................................113. The Amount Used is Permissible Fair Use........................................................................124. There Is No Market Harm From Publication of Diebold’s E-mail Archive For Purposesof Criticism.......................................................................................................................135. The Public Interest Supports A Finding of Fair Use.........................................................13C. Plaintiff OPG Is Entitled to Summary Judgment That There Is No Copyright Liability forMerely Linking to Infringing Material..................................................................................14D. Plaintiffs’ Are Entitled To Summary Judgment That Their ISPs Faced No Good FaithCopyright Claims...................................................................................................................151. ISPs Are Not Liable for Hosting Infringing Material When They Have ObjectivelyReasonable Beliefs That it Is Fair Use..............................................................................152. Copyright Law Does Not Provide for Tertiary and Quaternary Liability for ISPs Hostingor Colocating Websites that Link to Infringing Works....................................................16E. Since the Legal Threats Were Unjustified, Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment andDamages................................................................................................................................171. Tortious Interference.........................................................................................................182. Diebold’s Conduct Amounts to Misrepresentation Under DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)...203. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Summary Judgment Declaration that Diebold Misused ItsCopyrights.........................................................................................................................21

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/27/2008
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org (fewer)

Documents

People