13.07.2015 Views

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

could not c<strong>on</strong>trol such sales. 1899 Accordingly, <strong>the</strong> court granted Amaz<strong>on</strong> summary judgmentunder <strong>the</strong> safe harbor of Secti<strong>on</strong> 512(c). 1900g. Rossi v. MPAA. A peripheral issue relating to <strong>the</strong>notice provisi<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> Secti<strong>on</strong> 512(c) safe harbor was raised in <strong>the</strong> case of Rossi v. Moti<strong>on</strong>Picture Associati<strong>on</strong> of America, Inc., 1901 in which <strong>the</strong> plaintiff was <strong>the</strong> operator of a web sitecalled internetmovies.com, an <strong>on</strong>line directory of artists’ works and an <strong>Internet</strong> news magazineproviding informati<strong>on</strong> and resources about movies <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Internet</strong>. The MPAA found statements<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> web site such as “Join to download full length movies <strong>on</strong>line now! New movies everym<strong>on</strong>th”; “Full Length Downloadable Movies”; and “NOW DOWNLOADABLE” followed bygraphics from a number of <strong>the</strong> MPAA’s copyrighted movies. The MPAA sent a Secti<strong>on</strong> 512(c)written notice to <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s <strong>Internet</strong> service provider asking that it remove <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s website from its server because of <strong>the</strong> site’s allegedly infringing c<strong>on</strong>tent. 1902The plaintiff sued <strong>the</strong> MPAA for, am<strong>on</strong>g o<strong>the</strong>r things, tortious interference withc<strong>on</strong>tractual relati<strong>on</strong>s and tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and <strong>the</strong>MPAA moved for summary judgment. Under Hawaiian law, <strong>the</strong> plaintiff was required to showthat <strong>the</strong> MPAA acted without justificati<strong>on</strong>. The MPAA argued that its acti<strong>on</strong>s were justifiedbecause <strong>the</strong> DMCA authorized it to send <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s <strong>Internet</strong> service provider a noticerequesting that it shut down <strong>the</strong> plaintiff’s web site. 1903The plaintiff argued that <strong>the</strong> MPAA was not justified in sending <strong>the</strong> DMCA noticebecause, in order to have “a good faith belief” of infringement, <strong>the</strong> copyright owner is requiredto c<strong>on</strong>duct a reas<strong>on</strong>able investigati<strong>on</strong> into <strong>the</strong> allegedly offending website. The plaintiff arguedthat <strong>the</strong> reas<strong>on</strong>ableness of <strong>the</strong> investigati<strong>on</strong> should be judged under an objective standard ofreview, and that <strong>the</strong> MPAA had failed to meet that standard because, if it had reas<strong>on</strong>ablyinvestigated <strong>the</strong> site by attempting to download movies, it would have discovered that no moviescould actually be downloaded from <strong>the</strong> site or related links. 1904The MPAA countered that <strong>the</strong> “good faith belief” requirement should be a subjective<strong>on</strong>e, and <strong>the</strong> Ninth Circuit agreed. Although no court had yet interpreted <strong>the</strong> standard underSecti<strong>on</strong> 512(c), <strong>the</strong> court noted that several decisi<strong>on</strong>s interpreting o<strong>the</strong>r federal statutes hadtraditi<strong>on</strong>ally interpreted “good faith” to encompass a subjective standard. The court also foundthat <strong>the</strong> overall structure of Secti<strong>on</strong> 512 supported <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that Secti<strong>on</strong> 512(c)(2)(A)(v)imposes a subjective good faith requirement <strong>on</strong> copyright owners. C<strong>on</strong>gress included in Secti<strong>on</strong>512(f) a limited cause of acti<strong>on</strong> for improper infringement notificati<strong>on</strong>s, imposing liability <strong>on</strong>lyif <strong>the</strong> copyright owner’s notificati<strong>on</strong> is a knowing misrepresentati<strong>on</strong>. Juxtaposing <strong>the</strong> “goodfaith” proviso of <strong>the</strong> DMCA with <strong>the</strong> “knowing misrepresentati<strong>on</strong>” provisi<strong>on</strong> revealed a statutory1899 Id.1900 Id.1901 Rossi v. Moti<strong>on</strong> Picture Ass’n of America, Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9 th Cir. 2004).1902 Id. at 1002.1903 Id.1904 Id. at 1003-04.- 411 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!