Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brief of Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al, in support of Defendants

Brief of Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al, in support of Defendants

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by concerned-citizen
Brief of Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al, in support of Defendants in EMI v MP3tunes
Brief of Amici Curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al, in support of Defendants in EMI v MP3tunes

More info:

Published by: concerned-citizen on Dec 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/01/2010

pdf

text

original

 
i
Edward HernstadtHERNSTADT ATLAS LLP11 Broadway, Suite 615New York, New York 10004Tel: 212-809-2501Fax: 212-214-0307ed@heatlaw.comwww.heatlaw.comAttorney for
 Amici Curiae
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., CAROLINE )RECORDS, INC., EMI CHRISTIAN MUSIC )GROUP INC., PRIORITY RECORDS LLC, )VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., )BEECHWOOD MUSIC CORP., COLGEMS-EMI )MUSIC INC., EMI APRIL MUSIC INC., EMI )BLACKWOOD MUSIC, EMI FULL KEEL )MUSIC, EMI GOLDEN TORCH MUSIC CORP., )EMI LONGITUDE MUSIC, EMI VIRGIN MUSIC, )INC., EMI VIRGIN SONGS, INC., EMI AL )GALLICO MUSIC CORP., EMI ALGEE MUSIC )CORP., EMI FEIST CATALOG, INC., EMI GOLD )HORIZON CORP., EMI GROVE PARK MUSIC, )INC., EMI HASTINGS CATALOG, INC., EMI )MILLS MUSIC, INC., EMI MILLER CATALOG, )INC., EMI ROBBINS CATALOG, INC., EMI U )CATALOG, INC., EMI UNART CATALOG, INC., )JOBETE MUSIC CO., INC., SCREEN GEMS-EMI )MUSIC, INC., STONE AGATE MUSIC, and )STONE DIAMOND MUSIC, ))Plaintiffs, )) No. 07 Civ. 9931 (WHP)) ECF Casev. ))MP3TUNES, LLC, and MICHAEL ROBERTSON ))Defendants. )----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION, and HOMERECORDING RIGHTS COALITION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSSTATEMENTS OF INTEREST................................................................................................iv
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................2
I.
Congress Intended Section 512 to Reduce Legal Uncertainty for Service Providers......2
A.
Congress’s Intent Generally................................................................................................2
B.
Section 512’s Structure.......................................................................................................3
II.
Plaintiffs’ Interpretation of the DMCA Safe Harbors is Contrary to the Text and Intentof the Statute..................................................................................................................................5
A.
Plaintiffs Would Require Repeat Infringer Policies to Meet Arbitrarily-Set Standards.....5
B.
Plaintiffs’ Interpretation of “Red Flag” Knowledge Impermissibly Expands theKnowledge Disqualifier..............................................................................................................8
III.
Service Providers Are Not Barred by the Public Performance Right From UsingStandard Data Storage Models..................................................................................................11
A.
Direct Liability for Public Performance Requires Volitional Conduct by Defendants....13
B.
Public Performances Must Be Made “To the Public”.......................................................17
C.
Plaintiffs’ Interpretation of the Public Performance Right Would Chill Innovation inCloud Computing and Online Storage......................................................................................19
1.
Principles of Data Deduplication...................................................................................21
2.
Plaintiffs’ Public Performance Argument Creates Undue Liability Exposure for LegalRemote Computing Services that Use Data Deduplication..................................................22
3.
MP3tunes’ Use of Single Instance Storage Technology Does Not Transform a LawfulActivity into an Unlawful One, Because Each User Accesses a Distinct Legal “Copy” of Each Work............................................................................................................................23
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................25
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
, 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008)...........................passim
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
, 749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984)......................19
Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004).............................6
CoStar Group, Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc.
, 373 F.3d 544 (4th
 
Cir. 2004).......................................passim
 Ellison v. Robertson
, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004)........................................................2, 8
 Fame Publ’g Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc.
, 507 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1975)...........................7
 Field v. Google Inc.
, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006)...................................................15, 16
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd 
, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)...........................................................16
 National Football League v. Primetime 24 Joint Venture
, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2000)...............19
On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Indus.
, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991)....19
 Parker v. Google, Inc.
, 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006)......................................................15
 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)............................................4
 Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC 
, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007)................................................5, 10
 Perfect 10, Inc. v. VISA Int’l Serv. Ass’n
, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)........................................4
 Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Commc’n Servs.
, 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)14,17
Sony Corp. of Am v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)......................................16
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc.
, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2009)..v, 6, 7, 11
United States v. ASCAP (In re Cellco Partnership)
, 663 F. Supp. 2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).......20
United States v. Texas
, 507 U.S. 529 (1993)..................................................................................7
Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
, 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS), 2010 WL 2532404 (S.D.N.Y. June 23,2010).............................................................................................................................v, 6, 7, 11
STATUTES
 17 U.S.C. § 101.......................................................................................................................17, 2417 U.S.C. § 512......................................................................................................................passim
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
 
Copyright Infringement Liability of Online and Internet Service Providers: Hearing Before theCommittee on the Judiciary United States Senate on S. 1146 
, 105th Cong. 29 (1997)..............3H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, Part I (1998).............................................................................................4H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, Part II (1998)....................................................................................4, 6, 8H.R. Rep. No. 105-796 (1998)........................................................................................................4S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998)...................................................................................................passim
WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property on H.R. 2281 and H.R.2280
, 105th Cong. 123 (1997)....................................................................................................4
TREATISES
 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright (2005)...............................3, 9, 25

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->