Google books case dismissed on fair use grounds

In Authors Guild v. Google, Google's motion for summary judgment dismissing the case on fair use grounds has been granted.

In a 30-page decision, Judge Denny Chin, who has been presiding over the case since its inception as a District Court Judge, but who is now a Circuit Court judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reasoned that Google's "Library Project", which involved scanning books from libraries without permission of the copyright holders:

-was transformative in transforming "expressive text" into a "word index" and searchable data;
-does not supplant or supersede books since it is not a tool for reading books;
-adds value to the original;
-serves educational purposes, even though Google's own motive is commercial profit;
-limits the amount of text it displays in response to a search; and
-enhances, rather than detracts from, the value of the works.

Judge Chin concluded:

Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.

Similarly, Google is entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the copies of scanned books made available to libraries. Even assuming plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Google's actions constitute fair use here as well. Google provides the libraries with the technological means to make digital copies of books that they already own. The purpose of the library copies is to advance the libraries' lawful uses of the digitized books consistent with the copyright law. The libraries then use these digital copies in transformative ways. They create their own full-text searchable indices of books, maintain copies for purposes of preservation, and make copies available to print-disabled individuals, expanding access for them in unprecedented ways. Google's actions in providing the libraries with the ability to engage in activities that advance the arts and sciences constitute fair use.

Decision granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, November 14, 2013, Hon. Denny Chin, Circuit Judge

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

TechDirt: Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement

Interesting article in TechDirt about Prenda's growing difficulties:

Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement

And here we go again. In yet another Prenda court case, Team Prenda has lost big. These are the cases in Minnesota that were reopened earlier this year, after the court became aware of Judge Wright's ruling in California, showing how Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz appeared to be engaged in fraud on the court. In August, the magistrate judge assigned to review the cases, Franklin Noel, started demanding real answers to questions -- answers which never came.

Instead, we got a hearing in Minnesota that revealed some explosive new info, while Mark Lutz disappeared never to be heard from again. While Hansmseier and Duffy were never able to produce Lutz or answers to Judge Noel's questions, they did try to get Judge Noel kicked off the case.

None of the above strategies worked. At all. Judge Noel today not only rejected the request to pull him off the case, but also slammed Team Prenda, yet again, ordered them to pay back all the settlement money they got from the specific cases involved and then referred the case to law enforcement to look into the activities of Hansmeier, Steele, Duffy and Lutz....

Complete article

Preliminary injunction denied in Hearst v. Aereo

In Hearst v. Aereo, brought in the District of Massachusetts, the Court has denied Hearst's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court also denied Aereo's motion to change venue to the Southern District of New York.

October 8, 2013, decision denying preliminary injunction, Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, District Judge

Aereo officers required to be deposed about patent applications

In ABC_v_Aereo, Magistrate Pitman has overruled Aereo's attorney/client privilege objections to testifying about their patent applications at deposition.

October 7, 2013, decision of Magistrate Judge Pitman, order further depositions of CEO & CTO re patent applications

[Ed. note] It seems a little scary to me to give copyright plaintiffs yet another 'in terrorem' power and motivation to sue -- the opportunity to use the lawsuit as a means for delving into the non-public details of a defendant's patented technology. ~ R.B.

Vimeo held to be covered by DMCA safe harbor in Capitol Records v. Vimeo

In Capitol Records v. Vimeo, LLC, the Court has partially granted and partially denied both sides' summary judgment motions, holding that Vimeo is protected by the DMCA "safe harbor", but that there are factual issues over certain videos:

-as to 10 of the videos, whether they were stored "at the direction of the user"; and
-as to 55 of the videos whether Vimeo had either "red flag" or actual knowledge.

September 18, 2013, Memorandum Decision and Order, Partially Granting and Partially Denying Summary Judgment Motions

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Government seeks input as to copyright policy for digital age

The United States Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force has issued a 122-page paper which, among other things, calls for comment as to changes which should be made in the copyright law to accommodate the technological advances of the digital age, entitled "COPYRIGHT POLICY, CREATIVITY, AND INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY" (PDF).

In a blog post about the paper, issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office, entitled "We Want to Hear from You on Copyright Policies in the Digital Economy", Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs Shira Perlmutter writes:

The Green Paper calls for new public input on critical policy issues that are central to our nation’s economic growth, cultural development and job creation..... [W]e will soon be reaching out to the public for views on a variety of topics. Please stay tuned for announcements about how to share your thoughts, insights, and recommendations.

In recent years, the debates over copyright have become increasingly contentious. Too often copyright and technology policies are seen as pitted against each other, as if a meaningful copyright system is antithetical to the innovative power of the Internet, or an open Internet will result in the end of copyright. We do not believe such a dichotomy is necessary or appropriate.....

By intention, the Green Paper does not set out substantive policy recommendations, except where the administration is already on record with a stated position. Rather, it seeks to provide a thorough and objective review of the lay of the land—describing changes that have already occurred, identifying areas where more work should be done, and setting out paths to move that work forward.....

... In the coming weeks, we will begin to move forward on the specific items outlined in the paper for IPTF action:

Establishing a multistakeholder dialogue on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Soliciting public comment and convening roundtables on:

The legal framework for the creation of remixes—user-generated content that uses portions of copyrighted works in creative ways.

The relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital age.

The appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the context of
(1) individual file sharers and
(2) secondary liability for large-scale infringement.

Whether and how the government can facilitate the further development of a robust online licensing environment, including access to comprehensive public and private databases of rights information.

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot

Dismissal motions denied in NY cases Patrick Collins v Doe 1 & Malibu Media v Does 1-11

In two New York cases, Malibu Media v. Does 1-11 in White Plains, and Patrick Collins v. Doe 1, in Central Islip, defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim have been denied.

May 18, 2013, Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss, Patrick Collins v. Doe 1
July 16, 2013, Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss, Malibu Media v. Does 1-11

First Circuit affirms $675k verdict, calls Tenenbaum conduct "egregious"

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed the jury verdict of $675,000, or $22,500 per downloaded mp3 single, terming Mr. Tenenbaum's conduct "egregious".

June 25, 2013, Opinion, US Court of Appeals, First Circuit

No multiple statutory damage award for single infringed work ~ Agence France Presse v Morel

In Agence France Presse v. Morel, a copyright case pending in Manhattan, Judge Alison Nathan clarified that there can be no more than a single statutory damages award per infringed work.

Memorandum and order dated May 21, 2013, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, District Judge

Magistrate judge recommends severance, dismissal, and quashing of subpoenas in Elf-man v Does 1-57 in Oregon

In Elf-man v. Does 1-57, and several other cases brought by Elf-man, LLC, in Oregon, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the cases be severed and dismissed as to all Does other than Doe #1, and that the subpoenas as to those parties be quashed.

May 14, 2013, Order, Findings, and Recommendation, Hon. Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge