Technology & Marketing Law Blog

February 06, 2012

Roommates.com Isn't Dealing in Illegal Content, Even Though the Ninth Circuit Denied Section 230 Immunity Because It Was

By Eric Goldman

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, 2012 WL 310849 (9th Cir. February 2, 2012)

A brief history of this long-running case. Fair housing advocates sued Roommates.com for allowing potential roommates to evaluate each other using allegedly discriminatory criteria in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and related state claims. In 2004, the district court dismissed Roommates.com based on 47 USC 230. In 2007, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court in a horribly fractured batch of opinions led by Judge Kozinski. The Ninth Circuit wisely vacated those opinions and heard the case en banc. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit en banc majority, in an opinion written by Judge Kozinski, subsequently reinforced that 47 USC 230 didn't apply to parts of Roommates.com's service. The Ninth Circuit en banc majority opinion became the flagship exception to 47 USC 230, but that exception has proven narrow over the past four years; most cases citing Roommates.com rule for the defense.

After the Ninth Circuit en banc ruling, the case remanded to the district court to evaluate the substantive merits of the FHA and related claims (now that the Section 230 immunity was off-the-table). Although the Ninth Circuit en banc majority opinion didn't conclude that Roommates.com acted illegally, the opinion assumed Roommates.com's illegality so strongly that, not surprisingly, the district court ruled that Roommates.com violated the FHA and related claims.

The FHA ruling went back to the Ninth Circuit. Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled--in yet another opinion by Judge Kozinski--decisively that Roommates.com hadn't acted illegally, i.e., that it hadn't violated the Fair Housing Act (or California equivalent) because roommates who share a dwelling aren't covered by the statutes. From a cyberlaw standpoint, the ruling is only mildly interesting.

Much more interesting is this ruling's implication for 47 USC 230 and the Ninth Circuit's prior en banc ruling. In his en banc majority opinion, Judge Kozinski offered the following conclusion, which is the most commonly cited holding of this case:

If you don’t encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune.

Well, Judge Kozinski's latest ruling concluded that Roommates.com wasn't dealing in illegal content, so it should be immune, right? But Judge Kozinski earlier concluded that Roommates.com didn't qualify for the immunity because it had been dealing with illegal content. What gives?

It appears that Judge McKeown, in her en banc dissent, predicted this trap:

the question of discrimination has not yet been litigated. In dissenting, I do not condone housing discrimination or endorse unlawful discriminatory roommate selection practices; I simply underscore that the merits of the FHA claim are not before us. However, one would not divine this posture from the majority’s opinion, which is infused with condemnation of Roommate’s users’ practices. To mix and match, as does the majority, the alleged unlawfulness of the information with the question of webhost immunity is to rewrite the statute.

Indeed, one way of interpreting the Ninth Circuit's sequence of rulings is that, per the en banc ruling, a plaintiff can defeat a 47 USC 230 immunity defense simply by alleging the existence of illegal content (as part of showing the website encouraged/required illegal content), and this allegation works even if the content ultimately isn't illegal. But this would be a bad policy result--we need the immunity exactly when the plaintiff's allegation is wrong. We now know Roommates.com deserved to win (either due to the immunity or based on the substantive doctrine), but the immunity would have gotten us to the right result much faster. After all, Roommates got its 47 USC 230 dismissal in the district court EIGHT YEARS AGO. Now, 8 years later, we've reached the same result, but the parties have spent enormous amounts of time and money to restore that status quo. As both Judge Kozinski and Judge McKeown acknowledge, the point of the 47 USC 230 immunity is to help defendants save those costs for the defense. By letting the plaintiff's incorrect allegation trump the immunity, the Roommates.com majority rule has undermined that objective.

[Procedural note #1: it is tempting to criticize Roommates.com's counsel for pushing the 47 USC 230 immunity ahead of other defenses, but that's not fair. Putting aside the fact that Roommates.com did advance multiple defenses initially and not just 230, Section 230 should eliminate the defendant's need to go through a claim's substantive elements (and all of the discovery associated with it). So it's a logical litigation strategy to put the Section 230 immunity first. And in fact, Roommates.com got the Section 230 win at the district court, so until the Ninth Circuit coughed up its hairballs, the defense strategy worked well.]

[Procedural note #2: it's a little harder to be sympathetic to Judge Kozinski. In his defense, as an appellate judge, he deals with the cases as they arrive on his desk. [UPDATE: In the first version of this post, I mistakenly claimed the case was initially dismissed on a motion to dismiss.] However, his en banc opinion was written quite broadly and loosely. If he had any doubts about the legality of Roommates.com's actions--and the new opinion makes it clear he's strongly in support of their actions--he could have acknowledged that possibility more clearly rather than writing such a strongly worded opinion based on the presumptive illegality.]

A different way of reading this result is that the latest Ninth Circuit ruling has undermined the en banc ruling. Roommates.com never had illegal content in the first place, so the en banc opinion was based on a factual predicate that wasn't true. I've asked Roommates.com's counsel about the possibility of asking the Ninth Circuit to vacate the en banc ruling because of this factual predicate problem. I don't know if such subsequent proceedings are possible, but it would be a big win for 47 USC 230 jurisprudence for the Ninth Circuit to wipe away the en banc opinions. Even though the en banc opinions have produced mostly defense-favorable rulings, wiping them out would clean up some unnecessarily loose and confusing language in the majority opinion as well as cast significant doubt on the few plaintiff-favorable cases that have built on Roommates.com (e.g., Accusearch, NPS, Swift v. Zynga, Jones v. thedirty).

____

The case library:

* February 2012 Ninth Circuit ruling
* Roommates.com's reply brief on the second appeal
* Roommates.com's opening brief on the second appeal
* District court ruling on remand. November 2008 stipulation. Blog post on those developments.
* 9th Circuit en banc opinion from April 2008
* Recording of the en banc oral argument
* Amicus brief from a variety of Internet companies such as Google, eBay and Amazon plus non-profit organizations such as the EFF [subsequently rejected by the Ninth Circuit]
* Amicus brief from various news organizations
* Amicus brief from the ACLU. Roommates.com's reply brief to the ACLU brief.
* The Fair Housing Councils' request to brief Batzel. Roommates.com's opposition. The Ninth Circuit denied the Councils' request on Nov. 6.
* The Ninth Circuit order granting the en banc hearing
* Fair Housing Councils' reply to the EFF et al amicus brief
* EFF et al amicus brief supporting a rehearing en banc
* Fair Housing Council's response to Roommates.com's request for an en banc rehearing
* Roommates.com's En Banc Request
* The original 2007 Ninth Circuit opinion
* My blog post on the Ninth Circuit opinion
* Blog post on initial district court dismissal per 47 USC 230

Posted by Eric at 11:37 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

January 29, 2012

Newspaper Isn't Liable for User Website Comment Per 47 USC 230--Delle v. Worcester T&G

By Eric Goldman

Delle v. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 2011 WL 7090709 (Mass. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2011)

I previously mentioned this ruling in a recent Quick Link, but I can write up a full post now that I've seen the actual opinion.

Robert Delle is a lawyer (of course). A reporter surreptitiously called Delle and asked for his views on Obama's citizenship. The reporter then published a story in the T&G calling Delle a "birther" and opining about the relationship between the birther movement and racism. Seven months later, the T&G published a story covering a lawsuit that Delle was litigating. A user commented to that article that "there was no bigger dope than Delle." Delle claims the comment came from a T&G employee/agent, but his only support for this belief is that he'd heard a rumor that sometimes newspapers comment on their own stories.

Bringing a defamation lawsuit over being called a "dope" doesn't seem very savvy to me, and the court easily dismisses the claim due to 47 USC 230. The court correctly concludes "the T & G cannot be held liable for the statements of a third party on the comments section of its website." It doesn't matter if the T&G prescreened the comments, allowed other users to flag the comment as abusive (which Delle did) and decided not to act after users had flagged the comment as abusive. Delle's unsupported allegation that perhaps the T&G wrote the comment wasn't enough to survive the dismissal motion.

The court also tosses the defamation claim against the T&G for its earlier story. Interestingly, the court doesn't directly address the defamatory implications of calling someone a "birther," even though in my world a that's much worse insult than calling someone a dope. Instead, the court says that any implication that birthers are racist, and therefore Delle may be a racist, was clearly based on the reporter's personal beliefs, plus it constituted an interpretation of facts rather than a fact itself.

Prior blog coverage of newspapers' 47 USC 230 wins for user-posted comments.

Posted by Eric at 05:14 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

January 27, 2012

Top Internet Law Developments of 2011

By Eric Goldman

As usual, I'm running late with my year-end recap. This post begins with my countdown of the top 5 Internet Law developments of 2011, then it lists other interesting developments and cases. It concludes with some of the most linked posts and then my editor's choice of some posts in 2011 that might have been a little overlooked. As usual, thanks for reading the blog in 2011!

Countdown: My Top 5 List of Developments in 2011

#5: Righthaven Implodes. Since the beginning, I've been skeptical of Righthaven's business model. Seriously, who else thinks it's a good idea to sue small-time mom-and-pop bloggers and non-profits on a one-by-one basis? However, even I had no idea that Righthaven would accelerate their own demise by routinely making basic litigation errors. A sketchy business model + a litigation shop that isn't very good at litigation = one dead start-up. It's always fun (in a bloodsporty way) to watch hubristic bullies get their just desserts, but watching the Randazza firm school the Righthaven litigators in Litigation 101 has been amazing. THAT'S how you litigate.

Righthaven lost often in 2011 (see my August reset). They lost fair use rulings (e.g., CIO, Choudry). They lost on standing grounds (e.g., Democratic Underground, Wolf). They were hit with sanctions. They were hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fee shifts (e.g., Leon, Wolf, DiBiase). They even lost their domain name in an auction--a delicious irony given that Righthaven's complaints improperly demanded its defendants' domain names on the theory that it might need the domain name to satisfy a judgment against the defendant, when in fact it was Righthaven's domain name that was used to help satisfy a judgment against it!

Righthaven ended 2011 on death's door, but the trend of newspapers trolling for copyright litigation isn't going away. I'll be watching NewsRight closely in 2012.

#4: Medical Justice Gives Up. Speaking of hubristic bullies... You recall Medical Justice, the organization that helped doctors and other medical service providers take copyright assignments from patients in their as-yet-unwritten reviews so that the doctors could expeditiously remove unwanted reviews by sending 512(c)(3) takedown notices to review sites. It's an interesting legal hack, but it has some bad side-effects, including the fact that patients hated it, the copyright assignments almost certainly were void (for public policy reasons and others), doctors were hurting themselves by discouraging patient reviews (patients prefer to choose doctors when there's a critical mass of patient reviews), and (as our research uncovered) most consumer review sites ignored the doctors' 512(c)(3) takedown notices. Obviously, with those defects, Medical Justice wasn't exactly adding a ton of value to its clients. Medical Justice finally gave up, but too late to prevent a lawsuit against one of its clients and a complaint to the FTC. Chances are Medical Justice will be living with a long-term hangover from this entrepreneurial foray.

Seeing Medical Justice stop peddling anti-patient review tools was slightly satisfying, but that result was always a fait accompli. The reason Medical Justice's change of heart matters is that shady or clueless vendors keep developing new ways to suppress unwanted consumer reviews, and I hope Medical Justice's experiences will discourage other vendors from trying the copyright hack. I talk about these dynamics more in my paper on regulating reputational information.

#3: gTLD Expansion. It remains unclear exactly what ICANN's rollout of unlimited top level domains will do. Due to the expansion of new namespaces, brand owners face a long list of complicated--and potentially expensive--choices to make. Unfortunately, these choices don't really benefit society; instead, the gTLDs tax businesses while the benefits accrue to a small number of service providers (and, of course, ICANN itself). I think many businesses will reserve their name in multiple new gTLDs to prevent squatting--with the net effect that businesses will spend more money just to preserve the status quo. Meanwhile, most consumers are likely to be bewildered by the unlimited number of TLDs, which is just going to increase their tendency to rely on search engines and link directories rather than domain names to navigate to their desired destinations.

#2: Internet Consumer Privacy Lawsuits Tank. 2011 initially looked like the year of the Privacy Plaintiff. A torrent of privacy lawsuits had been filed, plaintiffs had wrested a few important and lucrative settlements, and Internet companies continue to make questionable privacy decisions that create a steady supply of potential new lawsuits.

But the path to riches didn't materialize. Instead, 2011 emerged as the year when privacy class action lawsuits mostly failed miserably. Courts principally rejected the lawsuits on standing grounds for lack of cognizable harm, but plaintiffs failed on other related grounds, such as a lack of damages negating the prima facie case. There were some exceptions where plaintiffs made a little progress (see, e.g., Claridge v. RockYou, Anderson v. Hannaford, Fraley v. Facebook). I'm sure the privacy plaintiffs' bar will be studying those rare successes to formulate a better battle plan--and to better prepare their cases and find strong named plaintiffs, a recurring omission that hasn't gotten a lot better over the year. However, for now, it's clear that the privacy plaintiffs' bar can't just show up in court and hold out their hands for a payday.

#1: Regulators Broke the Internet. We've always known that regulators could combat bad online activity by working "up the chain," i.e., by making upstream service providers liable for the bad acts or obligated to cut off the activity. However, for the most part, we've shared a tacit understanding that systematically going up the chain was a "nuclear" option--it would fix the specific problem but only at significant collateral cost that, on balance, makes the option unattractive.

I think we'll look back at 2011 as the year that tacit understanding broke down. In 2011, regulators around the world showed a seemingly insatiable demand for working up the chain. Although we in the USA like to think we're different from other repressive regimes, the evidence suggests otherwise. Some examples of "up the chain" activity in 2011:

* Arab Spring. Repressive regimes got local Internet access providers to turn off Internet access in the country.
* Operation in Our Sites. The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency keeps seizing domain names of suspected foreign rogue websites on an ex parte basis, making errors and breaking the law in the process. Mike Masnick blew open the story on Dajaz1.com, which ICE seized on an ex parte basis, conducted secret proceedings for a year, and then gave back the domain name with no explanation.
* Graduated Response. Copyright owners got Internet access providers to voluntarily (?) agree to restrict, and eventually terminate, their users' accounts.
* Secondary liability against intermediaries. Rightowners keep expanding their intermediary targets, including lawsuits against ad networks and SEOs/web designers. To be fair, some of these lawsuits aren't going very far, and expansive secondary liability theories aren't new in 2011.
* Ex Parte Seizures. Rightsowners are asking for the moon against third party service providers in ex parte proceedings, and courts are giving it to them because the third parties aren't there to represent their own interests. We recap this epidemic in this post.
* SOPA and PIPA. These proposed bills were the finest examples of rightsowners pursuing the nuclear option regardless of the collateral damage. The bills' basic architecture was to attack a wide range of intermediaries for third party actions--domain name registrars, search engines, payment service providers, ad networks. By seeking to deputize the intermediaries, the bills sought to instantiate "up the chain" duties across virtually the entire Internet. Putting aside their other policy deficiencies, I think we should resist all laws predicated on that fundamental assumption of intermediary deputization. See my post on the OPEN bill for why I reject the compromise "follow the money" solution. Sadly, I stand virtually alone in my stance.

Other Interesting Developments.

Some other interesting developments this year:

* Patent Reform. The America Invents Act is the most dramatic patent reform bill in years, and it has many provisions that may affect Internet companies, including the joinder standards, the prior user defense, and the novelty/priority standards. The law doesn't fix the overall problems with bad Internet patents or unmeritorious assertions of those patents, but it nevertheless could make some dramatic changes in what Internet companies do.

* Google and Antitrust. Google has become the incumbent in search, and all of its rivals--especially the companies Google is disintermediating--are desperately seeking to knock it off its perch. I believe Google and antitrust was the #1 topic prompting reporter phone calls to me in 2011. We are waiting to see what comes from the FTC investigation into Google's practices, and the list of Google-haters keeps growing daily. At the same time, the anti-Google forces made surprisingly little actual progress in 2011, including suffering a conspicuous (and not even close) loss in the myTriggers case. See my paper on why I am so over the Google antitrust battles.

* DC's Obsession with Busting Silicon Valley Companies. Sometimes, it feels like DC insiders wake up in the morning and wonder, "What Silicon Valley company do I feel like busting today?" Drive down the 101 from San Francisco to San Jose and play the "Spot the FTC/DOJ Bust" bingo game. Some of DC's targets in 2011: Google Buzz, Twitter (finalized in 2011), Facebook, Google pharma ads, Apple and others for no-poaching restrictions, and others. Good times!

* Judges Order Litigants to Hand Over Passwords to Social Networking Sites. This year, several judges ordered litigants to turn over their Facebook passwords to their litigation opponents for discovery purposes. See, e.g., Zimmerman v. Weis (which I added to my Internet Law reader this year). In 10 years, we'll look back at this mini-trend and shake our heads at the judicial cluelessness. Social networking sites contain a mix of public and private information, and letting a litigation opponent root around the account is just as objectionable as making a litigant hand over the keys to his/her house so the opponent can rummage around.

Other Key Court Rulings in 2011

Some other interesting court decisions this year:

* Author's Guild v. Google. The court rejected the Google Book Search settlement agreement for good reasons, but it sent the parties back to square 1. Why the parties haven't been able to broker a legislative compromise is beyond me.

* Barclays v. theflyonthewall. The Second Circuit took a big bite out of the hot news doctrine. Unfortunately, the Second Circuit didn't kill the hot news doctrine outright, but the opinion leaves open very little room for hot news plaintiffs.

* Network Automation v. Advanced System Concepts. The most important keyword advertising ruling to come out in several years. While the ruling itself was a mixed bag for the litigants, the opinion tore down a number of crusty plaintiff-favorable legal doctrines that had cluttered up trademark jurisprudence for years--including virtually mooting the initial interest confusion doctrine and killing the "Internet trinity" bypass to the standard multi-factor likelihood of consumer confusion test. I've noticed that the opinion has already noticeably tilted courts towards more defense-favorable rulings.

* Betty Boop case (Fleischer Studio v. AVELA). For a few months, it looked like the Ninth Circuit had eliminated trademark merchandising rights in characters that were out-of-copyright. Then it changed its mind; but still it liberated Betty Boop to the world.

* PhoneDog v Kravitz. An interesting battle over ownership of a Twitter account.

* Levitt v Yelp/Ascentive v. PissedConsumer. 47 USC 230 still works really, really well as an immunity. In Levitt, Yelp got a 230 dismissal that Yelp had tried to get advertisers to pay to manage consumer reviews. In Ascentive, the court rebuffed a plaintiff's effort to use a trademark infringement claim against a consumer review website to work around 230.

* Habush v Cannon. Buying a person's name as the trigger for keyword advertising doesn't violate their publicity rights.

* UMG v. Shelter Capital. While everyone waits for the Second Circuit's decision in Viacom v. YouTube, the Ninth Circuit stole some of that thunder with a powerful endorsement of the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. Too bad Veoh didn't live long enough to enjoy the win.

* In re Rolando S. Rolando was convicted of felony identity theft for taking a classmate's Facebook page for a joyride. My vote for the most interesting Internet Law case of 2011, and an instant cyberlaw classic. I've already added it to my Internet Law reader, and the students seemed to enjoy discussing the case.

Some of the Most Linked Blog Posts in 2011 (Per Topsy)

* New Advertising & Marketing Law Casebook Available for Review
* Court Orders Plaintiff to Turn Over Facebook and MySpace Passwords in Discovery Dispute -- Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc.
* "App Store" Isn't Generic, But Apple Can't Enforce Its Purported Trademark in the Term--Apple v. Amazon (Apple legal issues are always good link bait)
* Twitpic Modifies Terms and Claims Exclusive Rights to Distribute Photos Uploaded to Twitpic
* Republishing Entire Newspaper Story is Fair Use--Righthaven v. CIO
* Court Rules That Instant Message Conversation Modified the Terms of a Written Contract -- CX Digital v. Smoking Everywhere (the most popular post of the year by far--a modern Contract Law classic)
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner's Takedown Notices--Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals

Favorite "Overlooked" Posts

A few posts that maybe got overlooked a little:

* Cyberbullying and Restorative Justice [a Long-Delayed Post on DC v. RR]
* Racy Teen Photos Posted to Facebook Are Constitutionally Protected Speech--TV v. Smith-Green
* Marijuana Activist Can't Change His Name to "NJWeedman.com" -- In re Forchion
* Free-to-Consumers Ad-Supported Website Isn't Illegally Priced--Cammarata v. Bright Imperial
* What Would a Government-Operated Search Engine Look Like in the US?

Lists of Yore

Previous top 10 lists from 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Before that, John Ottaviani and I put together a list of top Internet IP cases for 2005, 2004 and 2003.

Posted by Eric at 09:45 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Evidence/Discovery , Internet History , Patents , Privacy/Security , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

January 22, 2012

Photobucket Qualifies for the 512(c) Safe Harbor (Again)--Wolk v. Kodak

By Eric Goldman

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 2012 WL 11270 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2012). Prior blog post on this case.

As I've indicated before, blogging 17 USC 512 cases has gotten tedious because they are just TOO LONG. I can crank through most 47 USC 230 cases in an hour or two because they are usually quite short and efficient. In contrast, because 17 USC 512 gives copyright plaintiffs so many words to contest, 512 opinions tend to be lengthy and quite time-consuming to blog--with this 69 page opinion as a prime example. This has some implications for drafters of laws like SOPA/PIPA, which have similarly long and detailed provisions that just beg plaintiffs to contest every word and will force courts to write quite lengthy opinions that bloggers like me will struggle to crank through. I cheer for immunities and safe harbors, but I have three cheers for SHORT immunities and safe harbors.

This case is even more unfortunate because the pro se plaintiff had an obviously unmeritorious case, yet the two defendants used three law firms to beat this case. And it's not exactly like Kodak is wallowing in cash any more.

Wolk is an artist. Users uploaded images of Wolk's work to Photobucket (a UGC photo-sharing site). Photobucket, in turn, had a revenue-sharing agreement with Kodak Imaging that allowed users to print the images via Kodak (i.e., Kodak did "photofinishing").

Photofinishing Liability

The court says that Kodak Imaging wasn't directly liable for printing the images (Wolk didn't allege secondary infringement). The court observes that "reproduction, display or transmission of the Plaintiff's images by or through the KODAK Gallery website is an automated process with no human intervention by any employee of the Kodak Defendants." Thus, because its entire system was automated, Kodak didn't act volitionally and thus avoids the strict liability standards of direct copyright infringement.

This ruling is unexpected because it's been conventional wisdom for many years that photofinishers were in fact directly liable for their print jobs. Perhaps that's because humans were always involved in the photofinishing process during that time, as opposed to now where the process from photo upload to mailing of items can be completely automated. Whatever the case, this ruling has to be encouraging for other automated photofinishers (whether they print photos or other items), such as CafePress or Zazzle. Then again, perhaps the copyright plaintiffs will pursue them under secondary infringement doctrines, which Wolk didn't do.

Although I like the result, I remain confused about the scope of the "volitional doctrine." As was the case in Cablevision, Kodak's system was completely automated only because Kodak's engineers designed it that way. We would benefit greatly from a richer theoretical grounding for the volitional doctrine and how it interplays with strict liability. Without that grounding, the results seem a little random.

512(c) Safe Harbor

Photobucket qualified for the 512(c) safe harbor. This isn't surprising; the court indicated as much when it denied Wolk's request for a preliminary injunction. Still, the court works through a 512(c) in fine detail:

* Photobucket is a "service provider"
* Photobucket properly adopted and implemented a repeat infringer termination policy.
* Photobucket accommodates standard technical measures. Wolk argued that Photobucket gives users tools that can remove or hide watermarks. The court doesn't opine whether watermarks are a standard technical measure, but instead the court says Photobucket doesn't encourage users to use the tools, so users--not Photobucket--would be the ones interfering with standard technical measures if watermarks qualified as such.
* Photobucket didn't have actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement. Before the lawsuit, Wolk sent 15 infringement notices covering 9 works. When Wolk sent 512(c)(3) notices, Photobucket expeditiously responded. However, 11 of the notices weren't 512(c)(3)-compliant (because they didn't specify URLs) and thus are irrelevant. (Compare the troubling dicta in the uncited UMG v. Shelter Capital). Wolk argued--as so many copyright owners do--that one notice about a work should cover all existing and future uploads without providing URLs of the other items. The court rejects that argument.
* Photobucket doesn't have the right/ability to control infringement because it does not prescreen content, render extensive advice to users regarding content and edit user content. Photobucket also lacked direct financial benefit from the infringement: "The Defendants' profits are derived from the service they provide, not a particular infringement."
* Photobucket properly identified its agent for notice and designated it with the copyright office.

All of this 512(c) analysis was fairly by-the-book. The most interesting part is where the court discussed how "Photobucket Has No Duty To Police Its Website For Infringements." The court says:

Photobucket is a website that consists of over 9 billion images and videos. Under the plaintiff's theory, Photobucket would be required to police its website for infringing copies of her work wherever they may appear once she has provided a DMCA-compliant notice....[due to 512(m),] the DMCA does not require the policing the Plaintiff suggests.

Secondary Infringement

The court says, without any real discussion, that 512(c) moots Photobucket's secondary liability. Accord UMG v. Shelter Capital. The court continues with other reasons those claims fail. In particular, Photobucket lacked the requisite scienter about the infringing items it transmitted to Kodak at users' requests, nor did Photobucket act "in concert" with Kodak. The court rejects the applicability of Grokster, Napster and Aimster because those cases involved peer-to-peer file sharing (more evidence of the exceptionalism towards P2P) and her incomplete takedown notices didn't confer scienter.

Conclusion

The court granted summary judgment against Wolk, ending her case. The precedential value of this case's discussion about 512(c) probably will be overwritten by the Second Circuit's Viacom v. YouTube ruling, and a win against a pro se litigant isn't much in the grand scheme of things. Nevertheless, the ruling reinforces that courts continue to take the 512 safe harbor seriously. In particular, they continue to rebuff copyright owners who don't send 512(c)(3) takedown notices but still want judicial relief.

Meanwhile, the "volitional conduct" defense appears to be live and well, especially in the Second Circuit, although I'm not sure anyone understands the doctrine's parameters.

Posted by Eric at 02:00 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

January 15, 2012

Attempted Trademark Workaround to 47 USC 230 Immunity Fails Badly—Ascentive v. PissedConsumer [Catch-Up Post]

By Eric Goldman

[This is one of the top dozen or so most important Internet law opinions of 2011, but unfortunately it came out just as I was going into my exam-grading exile and I had to put blogging it on hold. Even over a month later, it's still worth your careful review.]

Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011). A prior blog post on a different Ascentive lawsuit, Ascentive v. Google.

In my Regulation of Reputational Information paper, I explain how vendors are misusing intellectual property to control consumer perceptions of their businesses. One example is Medical Justice, which tried to use copyright law to work around 47 USC 230 and suppress unwanted reviews. Fortunately, Medical Justice has abandoned that effort.

Other vendors try to use trademark law to work around 47 USC 230. By definition, consumers must reference a vendor's brand in order to review it, and trademark's doctrinal plasticity means that such references arguably support a prima facie trademark claim. (I explain that issue more in my Online Word of Mouth paper). As a result, we've seen a number of vendors dabble with trademark claims against consumer reviews. For two examples, see Lifestyle Lift v. RealSelf and Eppley v. Iacovelli. (For more on the noteworthy litigiousness of doctors against consumer reviews, see this post).

In this case, the plaintiffs used trademark law to make a no-holds-barred assault on the 47 USC 230 immunity's applicability to consumer reviews. Their arguments go nowhere. I hope this emphatic ruling will discourage other plaintiffs from trying to use trademark law to work around 230.

Likelihood of Consumer Confusion

The court tried to do a straight-laced multi-factor LOCC analysis, but as I've noted before, the LOCC factors don't make sense when comparing apples and oranges like a vendor and a review site of the vendor. On the bad faith factor, the court says:

While it may be true that PissedConsumer has engaged in sharp-elbowed and perhaps unethical SEO tactics meant to make its webpages appear more relevant to search engines such as Google or Yahoo! than they actually are, that fact has no bearing on the inquiry here—whether PissedConsumer has attempted to sow confusion as to the source, origin, or affiliation of its products and services with those of plaintiffs.

The court instead observes: "Indeed, it is clear that PissedConsumer is not using plaintiffs’ marks as source identifiers at all." Well, that's only partially true--PissedConsumer is using the plaintiffs' marks as referents for the plaintiffs. (See Deregulating Relevancy for more on the implications of that). In a footnote, the court said there wasn't a dispute that PissedConsumer was using the marks in commerce, but the court failed to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent statements.

To bolster their unmeritorious trademark claim, the plaintiffs argued that several specific technological features used by PissedConsumer supported trademark infringement. The court rejects the plaintiffs' arguments on each feature:

* using the plaintiff's trademark as a third level domain name, i.e., ascentive.pissedconsumer.com. The court said that the pissedconsumer.com domain name makes it clear to consumers that the site is critical of, and therefore not affiliated with, the mark owner.

* using the plaintiff's trademark in the consumer reviews. The court says there's no consumer confusion here either:

after a brief inspection of the content of PissedConsumer’s website, the user would realize that they were visiting a third-party gripe site for “pissed” consumers.

* metatags. The court rejects initial interest confusion. First, there can't be competitive diversion because PissedConsumer isn't selling anything to consumers. Second, no one searching for the plaintiffs would be "diverted" to the defendants' website. (A point I make in gory detail in my Deregulating Relevancy article). Third, initial interest confusion imposes minimal (if any) harm on consumers because they can hit the back button. Finally, the court recognizes that technology has evolved since the 1999 Brookfield ruling such that metatags don't matter (citing, among other things, Google's 2009 blog post to that effect—thanks, Matt Cutts, for doing that!)

* black hat SEO. The opinion talks in some detail about linking archive posts from Twitter with the hope that Google will treat the posts as fresh content. The court says:

While it may be—and likely is—the case that PissedConsumer’s SEO practices are intended to make its webpages seem more relevant to search engines than they actually are and these methods may indeed violate the search engines’ terms of services, the remedy for this conduct is not trademark law but instead with the search engines themselves.

Amen to getting trademark law out of the way and letting search engines fix the gaming! This is another point I made ad naseum in my Deregulating Relevancy article.

* serving ads (through Chitika) showing the plaintiffs' trademarks, presumably automatically triggered by keywords on PissedConsumer's pages. The court says that, at most, PissedConsumer as the publisher is contributorily liable to any infringement committed by the ad network (Chitika), but the plaintiffs didn't allege contributory infringement. The court seemed to treat Chitika as the direct infringer instead of the advertisers, but in fact I think Chitika should be evaluated under contributory infringement as well, with the advertiser being the direct infringer (if there is one).

Although the court gets to the right place, its doctrinal jujitsu shows what happens when trademark law is stretched to places it doesn't belong. We've lost too many of the limiting principles in trademark law that should help make a case like this an easy one for judges. Among other things, a more robust use in commerce doctrine would have ended much of this case early, and the very lengthy opinion oddly doesn’t mention the seemingly applicable doctrine of nominative use at all.

47 USC 230

Having dispatched the plaintiffs’ trademark assault, the court mops up all of the remaining state law claims using 47 USC 230. The court says "a website such as PissedConsumer constitutes an ‘interactive computer service,’" which makes PissedConsumer's officers "providers" of an ICS. This is an unusual reading of the statute, but it's all good.

The court rejects the plaintiffs’ Roommates.com attack on 230, saying "determining what makes a party responsible for the ‘development’ of content under § 230(f)(3) is unclear, and the CDA does not define the term." Thus, the court says it's appropriate to examine the totality of the circumstances; plus, "one is responsible for the ‘development’ of information when he engages in an act beyond the normal functions of a publisher (such as deciding to publish, withdraw or modify third-party content) that changes the meaning and purpose of the content." The Roommates.com attack fails here because the plaintiffs provided no evidence that PissedConsumer actively created the content; their unsupported general assertions weren't enough. The court rejected the application of the old (and quite outmoded, IMO) Badbusinessbureau opinion, saying PissedConsumer's "actions are not unlike the targeted solicitation of editorial material engaged in by a narrow genre of publishers." (Huh?) Inviting consumers to post reviews and SEOing the pages didn't change the analysis. Accord Asia Economic Institute v. Ripoff Report.

Separately (and not relying on 230), the court tosses the RICO claim because the plaintiffs didn't show that PissedConsumer engaged in commercial bribery or extortion.

On these bases, the court rejects the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. However, the case is ongoing, and the plaintiffs still get discovery.

Implications

Although not a party to the suit, the real party-at-interest in this case is Google, because both Ascentive and PissedConsumer depend on Google traffic as virtually their entire marketing plan. In Ascentive's case, it said that 99% of its sales are made online, and a majority of that came from Google searches. Indeed, Ascentive had previously sued Google for trademark infringement before abandoning that claim. Meanwhile, PissedConsumer's business is to get favorably indexed in Google for businesses' names and then sell them services that take the edge off any negative user content that gets indexed. As a result, both litigants are competing against each other for favorable placement in Google search results. In my Online Word of Mouth paper, I discuss how brand owners face unusual and effectively unprecedented competition on their own brands for scarce consumer attention—in this case, the scarce resource of top search engine placement—and how that dynamic leads to weird trademark lawsuits like this one.

The legal ruling may be good for PissedConsumer, but this opinion isn't exactly a clean bill of health for its business model. Indeed, "the Court finds some aspects of PissedConsumer’s business practices troubling and perhaps unethical." I continue to believe that all consumer review businesses that seek to get paid by the vendors they review have a major structural conflict-of-interest—especially when the review site’s sales pitch to the vendor is reputation management. I ultimately think Google will need to restructure its algorithm to reflect the inherent untrustworthiness produced by these conflicts of interest.

Paul Levy's comments on the ruling.

Posted by Eric at 01:08 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

January 10, 2012

TheDirty Denied 47 USC 230 Immunity--Jones v. Dirty World

By Eric Goldman

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 2012 WL 70426 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 10, 2012). Prior blog post on this case.

A Kentucky federal judge rejected 47 USC 230 immunity for thedirty.com for third-party content. It's entirely clear that if the jury finds the user posts defamatory or a privacy invasion, this judge will let thedirty be liable for third-party content. That's exactly what 47 USC 230 was designed to prevent, making this a troubling and probably lawless ruling. Critics of 47 USC 230 will likely rejoice about this opinion because it represents the biggest incursion to 47 USC 230's immunity we've seen to date. Yet, for that reason, I wonder if this ruling will survive an appeal, which thedirty has already promised.

You may recall thedirty encourages users to submit third party gossip, typically about women, along with a photo of the gossip subject. Nik, thedirty's operator, evaluates the submissions, picks some of them for publication, and then typically adds his own short snarky comment about the user post. In this case, Nik published two user submissions about Sarah Jones, a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and a school teacher. The user posts intimated, among other derogatory remarks, that Jones had sex with the entire Bengals football team, had sexually transmitted diseases because her boyfriend cheated on her, and had sex with her boyfriend in public places, including her school classroom. In response to the second post, Nik's snarky comment was "Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack? – nik."

[Just to state the obvious, this isn't my kind of website. I think the site is targeted at a different demographic than middle-aged suburban dads of two. And if the statements are untrue, then they don't belong online. But unlike this judge, my views about 47 USC 230 don't turn on whether or not I think the website is laudatory or has good editorial practices.]

The court's discussion is short, yet it's surprisingly scattered. Pages 8-10 run through a gamut of gripes about thedirty's practices and statements, but the judge doesn't articulate the relevance of these facts (other than providing evidence of the judge's animus towards thedirty). Because the judge does a poor job connecting the facts to his adopted legal standard, we aren't sure exactly what thedirty did to foreclose the 230 immunity. However, and slightly helpfully, the court summarizes its conclusion at the end:

This Court holds by reason of the very name of the site, the manner in which it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie, the defendants have specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content of the site. One could hardly be more encouraging of the posting of such content than by saying to one’s fans (known not coincidentally as “the Dirty Army”): “I love how the Dirty Army has war mentality.”

This goofy legal standard ("specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content of the site") comes from the 10th Circuit FTC v. Accusearch opinion. Although a few other courts have cited Accusearch favorably, I believe this is the first time a court has favorably cited this specific standard for evaluating 230's immunity. (The language was also quoted in the Backpage case, although the defendant won that case). By adopting a legal standard that no other court has found useful, this judge was clearly reaching.

I personally wouldn't shed a tear if thedirty was wiped off the face of the Internet. As I said, it's not my kind of site. But Congress told judges that they aren't allowed to wipe UGC sites off the Internet just because they don't like them. For that reason, this is a terrible ruling that needs to be fixed on appeal. In the interim, I'm sure the plaintiff's bar will swarm all over this opinion, just like they have with other 230 exceptions. Yay, something we can look forward to.

Other blog coverage of thedirty cases:

* TheDirty Defeats Publicity Rights Claims--Gauck v. Karamian
* TheDirty Defeats Privacy Invasion Lawsuit--Dyer v. Dirty World
* thedirty.com's 47 USC 230 Defense Rejected on Motion to Dismiss--Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment

Posted by Eric at 02:55 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

January 07, 2012

Trademark Owner Can't Hold GoDaddy Liable for Domain Name Forwarding -- Berhad v. GoDaddy

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Berhad v. GoDaddy, C 09-5939 PJH (N.D. Cal.; Jan. 3, 2012)

Plaintiff, Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), a government owned entity, owns the Petronas Towers in Malaysia. It’s trying to enforce its trademark rights against two domain names (petronastowers.net and petronastower.net). In mid-2010, it quickly obtained relief against both domain names, via in rem actions. These aren’t the disputes before the court. Prior to obtaining in rem relief against the domain names, Petronas urged GoDaddy to disable the website and domain names (the domain names were registered to GoDaddy and GoDaddy provided forwarding services, which pointed the domain names to porn sites). GoDaddy demurred, stating that as the registrar, it could not adjudicate Petronas’s cybersquatting claim and since it did not host the underlying sites, it couldn’t process Petronas’s trademark infringement claim. Petronas is trying to hold GoDaddy liable for not ‘disabling’ the domain name and website at Petronas’s urging. It asserted claims for cybersquatting and contributory cybersquatting against GoDaddy. Its hook for trying to hold GoDaddy liable? GoDaddy “used” the domain names by providing forwarding services for its customers.

Cybersquatting claim: GoDaddy argued that it was covered by the ACPA’s safe harbor. It also argued that two of the three ACPA elements ((1) use; (2) confusingly similar domain name; (3) bad faith intent to profit) were not satisfied. The court does not rule on the safe harbor issue but agrees with GoDaddy that Petronas's claims cannot withstand summary judgment.

The court finds that GoDaddy’s forwarding service does not amount to “use” of the domain names: “GoDaddy simply provided the infrastructure to the registrant to route the [domain names] to the website of his choosing.” It was a free service that GoDaddy provided to its domain name registration customers. Additionally, under the cybersquatting statute, only the registrant or its representative can “use” the domain name and potentially incur liability. Second, there was no evidence that GoDaddy harbored a bad faith intent to profit by providing forwarding services. It also did not charge for the service so it did not profit from the forwarding in any way.

Contributory Cybersquatting: As the court acknowledges, it’s unclear whether courts even recognize claims for contributory cybersquatting. (I blogged about a Western District of Washington case whre Judge Martinez allowed the claim to go forward at the early stages: “Court Allows Microsoft's Claims for Contributory Cybersquatting and Dilution to Move Forward”; see also Eric’s post about SolidHost v. NameCheap: “Contributory Cybersquatting and the Impending Demise of Domain Name Proxy Services?”). The court analyzes the contributory cybersquatting claim under Perfect 10 and Lockheed and says that Petronas has to show that GoDaddy had knowledge and directly contributed to or induced the infringement. When the defendant provides a service the defendant can be held liable where it exercises “direct control and monitoring of the instrumentality” used to infringe. The court says that there is no evidence that GoDaddy exercised any type of control over the registrant’s use of the forwarding services. The court also says that Petronas has not shown that there is any bad faith by the registrant (the person who utilized GoDaddy’s forwarding services). According to the court, the registrant could have used the forwarding to “create mischief” or “annoy the owner of the Petronas mark” – he didn’t necessarily use the forwarding to “profit.” [This was a strange conclusion. I would have thought that the disposition of the in rem actions would conclusively establish bad faith intent to profit by the underlying registrant.]

Cancellation of Petronas’s Mark: GoDaddy asserted counterclaims and sought to cancel Petronas’s mark. Petronas argued that GoDaddy lacked standing to assert the claim for cancellation but the court rejects this: “GoDaddy has standing to seek cancellation because Petronas is using the registration as a sword against GoDaddy.” With respect to the merits of GoDaddy’s claim, the court says that factual issues preclude the grant of summary judgment. [Ouch. Petronas tries to hold GoDaddy liable, but all that's left of the lawsuit at this point is GoDaddy's claim for cancellation of Petronas's mark.]
__

The recently much-maligned GoDaddy may deserve a star for not caving to Petronas’s takedown notice, even at the risk of liability to GoDaddy. The court’s discussion alludes to the fact that registrars play a central role in the functioning of the internet as we know it. This just highlights the effect of GoDaddy’s conduct in other cases (e.g., the ex parte takedown cases Eric and I have blogged about). Of course, there’s also GoDaddy’s SOPA-support debacle, which resulted in a drain of domain names (including this one) away from GoDaddy. It’s unclear exactly what GoDaddy did in response to Petronas’s claims. While it did not cancel the forwarding, it did “assist Petronas in seeking a transfer order, and [locked] each domain.” In any event, GoDaddy deserves kudos for not summarily killing the forwarding that the registrant had in place.

The court’s treatment of Petronas’s direct infringement claim for cybersquatting spans many pages. The court ultimately concludes that GoDaddy provided services to the registrant in the nature of “infrastructure,” but still declines to consider GoDaddy’s claim that it was protected under the safe harbor. This is unfortunate because GoDaddy was forced to expend resources dealing with discovery and summary judgment; this may well influence GoDaddy's future dealings with others who are similarly situated to Petronas. ACPA's relevant registrar immunity provision (for damages) provides:

A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority shall not be liable for damages under this section for the registration or maintenance of a domain name for another absent a showing of bad faith intent to profit from such registration or maintenance of the domain name.

GoDaddy’s forwarding services arguably fall under “maintenance” of a domain name, but there’s not much discussion of GoDaddy’s immunity argument at all in the court’s order. The text of the immunity provision also leaves room for a damages claim where the plaintiff shows a “bad faith intent to profit.” This looks like unfortunate drafting that makes it tough for courts to grant immunity without consideration of fact-specific issues that are germane to the overall cybersquatting analysis. It would be nice for the immunity to distinguish between when the registrar is acting as a registrar and when it’s arguably trying to monetize domain names (e.g., through parking). (See: "Film Academy Targets GoDaddy Founder As Legal Fight Heats Up.") Registrar immunity rulings are rare, but if there was ever a candidate for when it is appropriate, this was it. A scenario where registrars routinely comply with rightsholder requests and disable forwarding or DNS resolution would break the internet. The court recognizes as much in its background discussion of the case (“If registrars stopped performing the function of taking name server information and providing it to registries, the Internet would not function.”) Unfortunately, the court does not take the route of providing immunity. [The routing point is relevant to the overall SOPA discussion.]

The court analyzes the contributory claim under Lockheed’s test for contributory trademark infringement. Courts continue to assume the viability of a claim for contributory cybersquatting, but they rarely dig in. Courts also don’t seem to discuss the contours of a cause of action against the backdrop of registrar immunity. A broad cause of action for contributory cybersquatting against registrars is a work-around of the registrar immunity provisions. (As GoDaddy pointed out, it was precluded by the ICANN/UDRP rules from disabling the site pending resolution of Petronas's claims, which were properly directed to a UDRP forum or a court.) I’m surprised the court did not take a much more critical look at Petronas’s claims here. Trying to hold GoDaddy liable for routing and pointing to DNS servers is a short step away from arguing that GoDaddy should be liable for forwarding. What’s next? Will Petronas sue Al Gore for its injuries because he invented the internet?

Petronas obtained the relief it sought: control or cancellation of the infringing domain names. It tried to hold GoDaddy liable because GoDaddy did not in effect disable access to the domain names. The court correctly rejects GoDaddy’s claims, but does not take the shortest possible route in doing so. The court should be cognizant of how its resolution of claims against GoDaddy will affect how GoDaddy reacts in the future to notices from rightsowners. The current trademark liability rules have resulted in a system where trademark owners can send takedown notices, typically to sites themselves. Rightsowners have pushed the envelope and through rulings such as Akanoc, are likely extending this to hosts as well. Petronas's claims tried to take it one step further, and broaden this to the registrar level. The court rejects its attempt, albeit in a long-winded way.

Related posts:

Contributory Cybersquatting and the Impending Demise of Domain Name Proxy Services?
Domain Name Privacy Protection Services Not Liable for Failure to Disclose Identity of Alleged Spammer
Court Allows Microsoft's Claims for Contributory Cybersquatting and Dilution to Move Forward
Does the House Judiciary Committee Debating SOPA Know What's Going On In the Courts?
If You Dislike SOPA, You'll Dislike This Case Too
Court OKs Private Seizure of Domain Names Which Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Goods

Posted by Venkat at 11:20 AM | Derivative Liability , Domain Names , Trademark

January 06, 2012

Did a Court Eliminate 512(h) Subpoenas?--Maximized Living v. Google

By Eric Goldman with additional comments from David Gingras

Maximized Living, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2011 WL 6749017 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011). The initial 512(h) subpoena. The Justia page.

17 USC 512(h) is a relic of a different era. The basic architecture of 17 USC 512 seeks to put copyright liability on users instead of their service providers. However, for that scheme to work, anonymous/pseudonymous infringers must be identifiable so the copyright owners can sue them instead of the intermediaries. 512(h) seeks to expedite the identification of alleged infringers by allowing copyright owners to get an unmasking subpoena super-easily. All copyright owners need to do is file a subpoena request with a court clerk, and in response the court clerk *must* issue the subpoena--the copyright owners don't need to file a lawsuit, and no judge reviews or approves the subpoena's issuance.

Indeed, neither the clerk nor a judge have any statutorily provided discretion to refuse the subpoena. As a result, 512(h) is now badly out-of-step with the law governing anonymous/pseudonymous online defendants that has developed over the past decade in response to unmasking abuses. In other areas than copyright, plaintiffs usually must make some showing that their substantive claims are meritorious before a judge will issue an unmasking subpoena. (The level of the plaintiff's showing depends on a variety of factors). In contrast, a 512(h) subpoena issues irrespective of the substantive merits of the plaintiff's claims--thus opening up a backdoor channel to unmasking abuses. For example, last year I got anecdotal reports that doctors used 512(h) to unmask patients that anonymously/pseudonymously reviewed doctors in contravention of the Medical Justice-supplied contract. If we were redrafting 17 USC 512 today, we would pay a lot more attention to 512(h) and its privacy implications than we did in 1998. [On that front, I have a latent empirical research project to investigate what happened after 512(h) subpoenas issued, but this case may have mooted it.]

With that background, let me turn to this case. Maximized Living sells copyrighted material to chiropractors. Anonymous blogger Doe allegedly infringed Maximized Living's copyrights via a Blogspot blog post. Maximized Living submitted an apparently overbroad 512(h) subpoena request to Google to identify Doe, and Doe successfully quashed the subpoena for its irregularities. Nevertheless, Doe apparently removed the infringing material from the blog. After that removal, Maximized Living sent Google a putatively corrected 512(h) subpoena request to unmask Doe. In this ruling, the court quashes Maximized Living's 512(h) subpoena for a second time.

The court does something goofy to reach this result. The court holds "that the subpoena power of s 512(h) is limited to currently infringing activity and does not reach former infringing activity that has ceased and thus can no longer be removed or disabled." Thus, because Doe had removed the infringing material after the first 512(h) subpoena was quashed, there was no infringing activity taking place when the second 512(h) subpoena request was made.

The problem with this result is that copyright owners must submit a 512(c)(3) takedown notice to service providers before seeking a 512(h) subpoena. Most service providers will take down the allegedly infringing material in response to the 512(c)(3) notice, so unless the copyright owner moves really fast to make its 512(h) request, the infringing material invariably will be down before the 512(h) subpoena request gets filed with the court--leaving those copyright owner in the same place as this one (i.e., submitting a 512(h) request when there's no current infringement). Below, David Gingras explains why the court may have misread the statute.

As a practical matter, this case's result may not be earth-shattering even if it survives appeal. I believe most service providers honor 512(h) subpoenas without much scrutiny and perhaps without notifying the targeted individual. This case will only help if the targeted individual challenges the subpoena, which will only happen if the service provider notifies the individual before releasing the unmasking information and the individual gets to court quickly enough. Because the service providers are a critical player in this process, how they handle 512(h) subpoenas warrants careful attention. I'd be game to work with you to try to get service providers to tell us more about their 512(h) handling procedure and if they give notice to the users--and wait for any quashing effort to materialize--before forking over unmasking info. [FWIW, Google appears to have done both, so they get a gold star for the day.]

Copyright owners also can avoid this result by filing the 512(h) subpoena request basically at the same time as they send the 512(c)(3) notice. That way, when the 512(h) subpoena is filed, there is still infringing activity occurring, even if it's quickly eliminated by the service provider responding to the 512(c)(3) notice. My guess is that many copyright owners will be reluctant to do this because it will increase the cost and time required to target infringing material when quick-filing of a 512(h) request will help in only a small number of situations. Thus, changing the takedown protocol to add a 512(h) filing probably isn't cost-effective.

Finally, even if 512(h) isn't available, the copyright owner can still seek unmasking through a John Doe lawsuit. This isn't as low-cost as 512(h) and will trigger judicial screening of the subpoena request before issuance, so 512(h) is better for copyright owners if they qualify. Nevertheless, copyright owners can still achieve unmasking, and perhaps this case simply indicates that 512(h) is a much more highly specialized solution than we thought.

Finally, a personnel note: one of the plaintiff's lawyers is Kenton Hutcherson. You may recall that last year I blasted an article by Kenton for advocating that plaintiffs scrub search results by taking advantage of Google's apparently lax policy towards court orders. Here, it looks like the judge didn't respond well to at least two of the plaintiff counsels' choices:

1) the overreach in the initial 512(h) subpoena request
2) the submission of a second 512(h) without the court's permission, as specified when the court quashed the first subpoena

One possibility is that the court reached its odd substantive conclusion in response to the plaintiff lawyers' errors.

________________

Comments by David Gingras

[Eric's introduction: Many of you already know David Gingras due to his positions as General Counsel for Ripoff Report and litigation counsel for thedirty.com. While drafting this post, I sent this opinion to David for his thoughts, and his statutory analysis in response was so useful that I asked his permission to share it]

I think it’s extremely clear the court make the wrong decision here. I think the court should have found that the subpoena was entirely appropriate under § 512(h) even if the allegedly infringing material had been removed and the infringing activity stopped.

The court’s premise seemed to be that you could only use a pre-suit subpoena under § 512(h) to identify current infringers, not a former infringer who had stopped infringing. By itself, this seems like a very dubious distinction. What’s the difference?

As far as I can see, the conclusion was based on the fact that you obviously can only use what is commonly referred to as a “DMCA notice” (i.e., a takedown demand under § 512(c)(3)(A)) to address active infringements. In turn, that sounded correct because § 512(c)(3)(A) requires the party submitting the notice to identify, inter alia: “the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled." By using the present and future tenses here, it’s beyond obvious that this section doesn’t apply to past acts of infringement. In other words, you can only use a § 512(c)(3)(A) notice to address current/ongoing infringements (DUH – if the material was already removed, you wouldn’t need to a send a takedown notice anyway, right?)

Up to this point, the court interprets the DMCA in a common sense way, but then it erred when it assumed (incorrectly), that because § 512(h) subpoenas are necessarily premised on a § 512(c)(3)(A) takedown notice, that requires the court to find that where the infringement has stopped, the right to pursue a § 512(h) subpoena also stops. That’s just totally inconsistent with the plain language of § 512(h)(5) which talks about the duties of a party on the receiving end of a DMCA notice (like Google) once they receive the follow-up subpoena:

(5) Actions of service provider receiving subpoena.--Upon receipt of the issued subpoena, either accompanying or subsequent to the receipt of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A), the service provider shall expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification. [italics added]

The way I read that section, it seems pretty simple – you can get and serve a § 512(h) subpoena either contemporaneously with the § 512(c)(3)(A) takedown notice, or the subpoena may be issued subsequent to that notice; i.e., at a later time when the infringement has already stopped. Either way is perfectly fine, which makes sense.

In this instance, the way the court interpreted § 512(h) makes the words “or subsequent to” totally superfluous, so we know the court’s conclusion is incorrect. Furthermore, the last few words of § 512(h)(5) seem to suggest that § 512(h) subpoenas may or may not come after a service provider has already “responded” to the takedown demand; i.e., after the material has already been removed – that’s another strong indicator that the right to pursue a § 512(h) subpoena may start with a § 512(c)(3)(A) takedown notice, but it does not stop simply because the infringing material was removed.

Posted by Eric at 09:18 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

January 05, 2012

SOPA/PROTECT-IP/OPEN Linkwrap #2

By Eric Goldman

It's been a busy time for news related to SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act, not the Stop Online Privacy Act, although that could be an unintended result!), PROTECT-IP/PIPA, and the OPEN Act. In a bit, I'll recap some links. First, though, some general thoughts about the last month.

As I predicted, SOPA has been incredibly divisive. It has largely boiled down to Hollywood in support vs. the rest of the world against, with an emerging "with me or against me" attitude. What a shame. We get much better results when the tech and entertainment community collaborate rather than play zero-sum games.

Naturally, I think Hollywood has made several strategic miscalculations here. First, the outrageousness of its proposals has mobilized the tech community. It's been fascinating watching companies and politicians scramble to disavow themselves from SOPA when targeted by the anti-SOPA advocates. That NEVER happens when it comes to a Congressional proposal to regulate technology. Perhaps this mobilization will be a flash in the pan, or perhaps Hollywood has poked a sleeping tiger once too often.

Second, Hollywood's credibility with its financially-sponsored politicians may be wearing thin. Politicians will happily take its money, but they don't enjoy looking like fools--and many SOPA supporters have, in fact, looked pretty silly while being left twisting in the wind by their Hollywood patrons. Money will buy a lot of politician patience, but the goodwill reservoir is not bottomless.

Third, even if Hollywood can succeed in passing something like SOPA or even PIPA, I believe it would be counterproductive to its long-term interests. As I've mentioned before, we all benefit from having larger common markets (see, e.g., NAFTA or the EEC), and the Internet has emerged as the largest common market of all. A Balkanized Internet will devolve into disparate smaller markets that represent less value for everyone.

A final counterproductive point, although Hollywood may not care. SOPA/PIPA absolutely will drive US dollars--and jobs--overseas. For example, I ditched GoDaddy as my domain name registrar and took my business to a foreign registrar who won't be subject to SOPA/PIPA. If other folks make the same calculations I did, collectively it will be a boon for foreign service providers and a net loss for US service providers. At best, SOPA/PIPA preserve some jobs at the expense of others; my guess is that our economy will suffer a net reduction in jobs. Just what we need during this protracted economic downturn.

The amazing thing is: despite the complete lack of credible empirical evidence supporting SOPA/PIPA, and despite a groundswell of grassroots opposition to it, and despite companies and politicians dropping their support of SOPA/PIPA when the spotlight is cast on them, Hollywood might still be able to succeed in this rent-seeking endeavor. It's evidence of just how well Hollywood has embedded itself into Congress' psyche (and wallets).

Some news items since my last linkwrap:

* OPEN has been introduced in the Senate as S.2029.

* CDT's list of opponents. As you know, I am on it.

* Mike Masnick broke a huge story about Dajaz1.com, showing how our government repeatedly broke the law in falsely pursuing a so-called rogue website. The conduct of the government is chilling--things like this aren't supposed to happen in our democracy!--and if heads don't roll for the coverup, it will be another nail in the coffin of our republic.

* The government also lost the Rojadirecta case. Also, an in-depth look at the Operation in Our Sites bust of Ninja Video, where the government continues to make questionable interpretations of criminal copyright law.

* Constitional Law scholar extraordinare Laurence Tribe and advocate Marvin Ammori both explained how SOPA violates the First Amendment. Marvin followed up with a First Amendment assessment of the manager’s amendment. Corynne McSherry’s thoughts.

* Why aren't members of Congress listening to the opposition? Maybe it has something to do with the revolving door between government and industry. See this article: SOPA revolvers: Sixteen former Judiciary staffers lobby on online copyright issues.

* Wikimedia’s General Counsel Geoff Brigham explains “How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia”

* One of the many unanswered questions: who is a rogue website and how many are there? CNET News.com suggests that SOPA is all about taking out just one website--The Pirate Bay. Seriously, we're going to break the Internet because of The Pirate Bay? Talk about collateral consequences for something that could be handled with incredibly narrow legislative fixes—or better yet, with precise transborder enforcement cooperation.

* EFF on the good and bad in the OPEN Act.

* Mike Masnick completely destroys Lamar Smith’s so-called statement of facts in support of SOPA. Reading articles like this remind us that support for SOPA/PROTECT-IP is hardly about "the facts."

* More "fact" debunking, this time by Julian Sanchez.

* Speaking of "the facts" or the lack thereof, it appears that the House Judiciary Committee is massively overclaiming who supports SOPA. Misleading the American public apparently is just business as usual in DC.

* Meanwhile, companies are realizing that being listed as a SOPA supporter isn't necessarily good for business. SOPA opponents targeted GoDaddy, who instantly declared their lack of support for SOPA but remains completely untrustworthy and hypocritical.

* Meanwhile, SOPA is turning into an election-year issue, and politicians are beginning to learn the power of Reddit.

* If you want to speak up, check out SOPA Track and find out where your legislators stand. My Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, has been firm in her opposition to SOPA, but the California senators are both PIPA co-sponsors because they too deeply in bed with Hollywood to listen to other constituents. So fair warning to Sen. Boxer and Feinstein--I plan to vote for your opponents, whoever they are, in the next election cycle.

* Great article about how SOPA will become a Trojan horse for all types of online content censorship, not just the suppression of rogue websites.

* Opposition to SOPA is bipartisan: “I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.”

Just a reminder because everyone knows SOPA is so ridiculously extreme: PROTECT-IP is NOT an acceptable "compromise" to SOPA. PROTECT-IP is also extreme. As I indicated previously, if we're going to have any legislative discussions about rogue websites, we should start with the OPEN Act and iterate from there. In light of the action in the courts (see the links below), any legislative solution should be coupled with increased immunities for Internet intermediaries so that they don't just coddle the rightsowners irrespective of the legislation.

FWIW, I have called Rep. Eshoo to thank her for her opposition to SOPA, and I've contacted Sens. Feinstein and Boxer to let them know that I disagree with their positions on PROTECT-IP. Have you contacted your legislators to tell them how you feel? If you don't speak up, they won't know where you stand.

Prior blog coverage of SOPA/PROTECT-IP/OPEN:

* More on Ex Parte Cutoffs of Foreign "Rogue" Domain Names
* Does the House Judiciary Committee Debating SOPA Know What's Going On In the Courts?--Philip Morris v. Jiang
* If You Dislike SOPA, You'll Dislike This Case Too--True Religion v. Xiaokang Lei
* The OPEN Act: Significantly Flawed But More Salvageable Than SOPA/PROTECT-IP
* I Don't Heart SOPA or PROTECT-IP: A Linkwrap
* Ad Network Avoids Contributory Copyright Infringement for Serving Ads to a Rogue Website--Elsevier v. Chitika
* Court OKs Private Seizure of Domain Names Which Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Goods--Chanel, Inc. v. Does
* Why I Oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/E-PARASITES Act

Posted by Eric at 09:15 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Trademark | TrackBack

January 02, 2012

Nov.-Dec. 2011 Quick Links, Part 1

By Eric Goldman

47 USC 230

* Wang v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc., 2011 WL 4903190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011). In a false advertising suit, the plaintiff argued that the defendant quoted/linked to third party testimonials on the defendant's website and those contributed to the misrepresentations. The defendant counterargued that the third party content was immunized by 47 USC 230 and therefore shouldn't be attributed to it. The court rejects the defendant's use of 47 USC 230 on a motion to strike material from the complaint, saying that it was too premature. Rebecca's coverage.

* News report that, per 47 USC 230, Worcester Telegram & Gazette wasn't liable for user-posted comments to one of its stories. Naturally, the plaintiff was an attorney. Prior blog coverage of lawsuits against newspapers for user-posted comments.

* Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs appealed their 230 loss in Levitt v Yelp to the 9th Circuit. Prior blog post.

* Parisi v Sinclair, another 230 case, is being appealed to the DC Circuit. Prior blog post.

* An insurance company sued Google for the high search placement of Scam.com and PissedConsumer reports about it. Hello 47 USC 230!

* Techdirt: Dentist Who 'Invoiced' Patient For Negative Reviews, Getting Slammed On Yelp. Prior blog post.

Content Regulation

* Yoder v. University of Louisville, 2011 WL 5434279 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2011). Yoder graduated from University of Louisville with her nursing degree, but her lawsuit isn't moot due to her damages claim. Prior blog post.

* Roberts v. McAfee, Inc. (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2011). Due to the single publication rule, failing to remove a press release on the website does not reset a defamation statute of limitations.

* Mattingly v. Milligan, 2011 WL 5184283 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 1, 2011):

Milligan won a hotly contested race for the position of Saline County Circuit Clerk. Following his election, Milligan sent a letter to four employees informing them that he would not retain them. That evening, Mattingly made two posts on Facebook in quick succession stating that bad things were all around and that her heart went out to those ladies who were told they were no longer needed. The posts could be viewed directly by at least 1,300 people, most of whom were residents of Saline County. As Milligan said in his letter of termination, Mattingly's statements were "in a public domain."...As evinced by their comments in response, some who read the posts understood Mattingly to be speaking about Milligan's decision to terminate some employees in the Circuit Clerk's office. These comments included criticisms of Milligan's termination decisions. According to Milligan, six constituents were motivated by Mattingly's posts to call him at home to complain about the terminations. Television news stations, newspapers, and an internet blogger reported on the Milligan's decision to terminate the employees. Viewing the evidence in Mattingly's favor, her Facebook posts touched on a matter of public concern.

* Obsidian Financial v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011). The court held that an Oregon blogger isn’t a journalist for shield law purposes. I think the case got so much attention in part because the judge said unnecessarily derogatory things about bloggers. However, Kash Hill reports that the defendant doesn't appear to adhere to journalistic standards, either. Eric Robinson explains why the judge got to the right legal result. The EFF also contextualizes the ruling.

* Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center v. Marzano-Lesnevich (E.D. La. Nov. 23, 2011). Interesting anti-SLAPP decision.

* India asks Google and Facebook to prescreen UGC to prevent the publication of disparaging content.

* The Smoking Gun reports on a prosecution for posting revenge porn.

Search Engines

* Not surprisingly, myTriggers appealed its loss in its antitrust claims against Google. (Because the case has nothing to do with its legal merits, I'm sure myTriggers will keep appealing losses until they exhaust all appeals). Prior blog post.

* In an expected move, ShopCity filed an antitrust complaint against Google with the FTC.

* buySafe v. Google complaint: As part of a patent battle, buySafe asserts that Google promises better search placement for participants in its Trusted Stores program.

* More insight into the Google Search Quality Raters. Prior blog post.

* On a related note, Bing is going back to hand-picking some search results. Could you imagine how the Google Haters would respond if Google did the same thing?

* Also related? New Scientist: “Google and Microsoft have won a major victory in the fight against such content farms”

* Google is cracking down on parked domains in its search results. Compare Vulcan Golf v. Google.

* Google Knol is another casualty of Google's project cleanup. Remember some Google Haters thought Google Knol would crush other encyclopedic-style projects due to Google favoritism of its own properties? (See, e.g., this article). What say you now?

* Google, Bing and Yahoo shut down fraudulent mortgage advertisers (WSJ, Search Engine Land).

* Search Engine Land: Google Instant Costs Google $65,000 In France. Given all of its prior losses, I had thought Google already was completely illegal in France.

* MediaPost: “consumers’ failure (or refusal) to differentiate between their search and browser bars shaped search behavior in 2011.” I wrote about this same issue...back in 2005!

* Clive Thompson: Why Kids Can’t Search.

Social Networking Sites

* Zoya Co. v. Julep Nail Parlor Co., 2011 WL 5975054 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2011). Website wasn't passive for Zippo purposes because, among other things, "It includes links that allow customers to “Connect on Facebook” and “Connect on Twitter” and to subscribe to a monthly newsletter." Compare DFSB Kollective Co. v. Tran.

* U.S. v. Cassidy, 2011 WL 6260872 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2011). Reversing a harassment conviction based on talking a lot about a person on Twitter and in a blog.

* Dimas-Martinez v. State, 2011 Ark. 515 (Ark. Dec. 8, 2011). “Because of the very nature of Twitter as an on online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion….Thus, this court has recognized the importance that jurors not be allowed to post musings, thoughts, or any other information about trials on any online forums. The possibility for prejudice is simply too high. Such a fact is underscored in this case, as Appellant points out, because one of the juror's Twitter followers was a reporter. Thus, the media had advance notice that the jury had completed its sentencing deliberations before an official announcement was made to the court. This is simply unacceptable, and the circuit court's failure to acknowledge this juror's inability to follow the court's directions was an abuse of discretion.”

* U.S. v. Juror Number One, 2011 WL 6412039 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2011). A juror was fined $1,000 for criminal contempt for using email to discuss the case with other jurors during the trial after being dismissed from the jury.

* State v. Gordon, 2011 WL 5354265 (Ohio App. Ct. Nov. 7, 2011):

if Gordon's use of the computer for personal purposes during work time constitutes theft in office, it would mean that every public official or government employee who sends a personal email, reads a text message, or checks Facebook during working hours would be guilty of committing a felony. We do not believe that is the intended purpose of R.C. 2921.41. Therefore, we find that there was insufficient evidence that Gordon's use of the Village's computers for personal purposes constituted Theft in Office pursuant to R.C. 2921.41

* Woodward v. State, 2011 WL 6278294 (Ala. Crim. App. Ct. Dec. 16, 2011). Inflammatory online comments about a defendant (who allegedly killed a police officer) don’t necessitate a change in venue: “the unsolicited, unreviewed, largely anonymous online comments did not rise to the level of saturated, prejudicial media coverage. Moreover, we believe that any readers of the comments would value those comments at their true worth and not as “news coverage” at all.”

* Facebook “accidentally” blocked Snopes.com as a spammy link. Prior blog post.

* Kash Hill: How Not To Use Facebook To Get Custody Of Your Kids. Horrifying story!

* Gizmodo: Facebook Is Making Us Miserable [and not for the reason you think!]

* The truth about students using Facebook and their grades.

* A quarter of the blogs listed on the inaugural ABA Journal Blawg 100 from 5 years ago are now gone. This blog didn't make the first list, but next month we'll be celebrating our SEVENTH anniversary!!!

* K-12 schools are adopting social media policies restricting teacher-student interaction on social networking sites.

Posted by Eric at 07:49 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Search Engines | TrackBack

UGC Website Hit With Spoliation Sanctions--Io v. GLBT

By Eric Goldman

[This is one of those blog posts that got stuck in queue. It's still pretty interesting, so I'm sharing at this relatively late date. Happy new year!]

Io Group Inc. v. GLBT Ltd., 2011 WL 4974337 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)

This case involves Io, the pornography company that lost Io v. Veoh, the main 17 USC 512 case I teach in my Internet law course. The defendants in this case are British. They run a series of UGC porn websites where users can get some porn for free and then must pay for additional access either with cash or by uploading their own content. The plaintiffs seek to hold the defendants liable for copyright and trademark infringement because users are allegedly committing copyright infringement by uploading the plaintiffs' porn. The defendants are defending on 17 USC 512 and other grounds.

Being in Britain, the defendants are governed by the Data Protection Act. They interpreted that act to require them to flush lots of data very quickly. Perhaps they have been overly zealous about implementing the DPA such that their interpretation isn't so credible. For example, they automatically deleted all incoming and outgoing email after 3-4 days, and they didn't change this for more than a year into the lawsuit. They also completely deleted all files that were subject to a takedown notice, so it wasn't possible for plaintiffs to see which files had been removed. Their answers to the judge's pointed questions apparently weren't very satisfying, and eventually the defendants went AWOL. So it's a little hard to tease out any legitimate DPA-based objections the defendants might have had from their other questionable choices.

FWIW, I'm not a DPA expert, but the DPA requires that the service provider keep data only so long as reasonably necessary. I would think legal obligations/discovery rules satisfy that standard.

The court's opinion gives some insights into the evidence that would be useful for the 512 safe harbor. The defendants completely wiped away any UGC files they disabled. The court says:

With respect to the deleted audiovisual files, Plaintiffs are prejudiced by not being able to examine the files and related metadata for any "red flags" indicating that infringement was likely. Such red flags could render Defendants ineligible for safe harbor protections of the Copyright Act.

This is consistent with language in the Ninth Circuit's subsequent ruling in UMG v. Shelter Capital. The court continues:

The loss of takedown notices and corresponding removal notification emails also prejudices Plaintiffs. First, the trier of fact may consider the extent of copyright infringement on Defendants' websites when analyzing a claim of inducement to infringe....Although the number of takedown notices does not alone determine the amount of actual infringement on the site, a large number of notices could indicate that a large portion of the material on the site is infringing. In addition, in order to be eligible for safe harbor protection, Defendants must show that they have policy in place providing for the termination of repeat infringers. 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A). Defendants claim that they have such a policy in place, but without the ability to examine the takedown notices and corresponding emails, Plaintiffs have no way of challenging the implementation and enforcement of the policy because they cannot examine whether Defendants actually terminated individual users who repeatedly posted infringing material.

I'm not clear about the relevance of the percentage of infringing activity, but for more on the evidentiary issues associated with inducement, see the Grokster ruling. Finally, the court says:

the destruction of Defendants' internal emails renders it impossible for Plaintiffs to explore Defendants' motivation and state of mind in operating their websites; this is key to Plaintiffs' claim of secondary infringement based on inducement

For the evidence spoliation, the court hits the defendants with adverse inference sanctions:

Plaintiffs are entitled to adverse inference instructions in the form of rebuttable presumptions. Given the specific evidence destroyed by Defendants, the court orders the following rebuttable factual presumptions: 1) third parties posted material on Defendants' websites that infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights; 2) Plaintiffs submitted takedown notices to Defendants regarding the infringing material; and 3) Defendants did not take steps to remove Plaintiffs' infringing material from their websites.

Unless the defendants magically find some exculpatory evidence, it sounds like those inferences will nail them on the substantive rulings. The court also awarded $15,000 in attorneys' fees.

This case raises a number of interesting issues.

First, exactly what evidence is plaintiffs entitled to when trying to overcome a service provider's 512 defense? As far as I can tell, there are few limits because just about anything might support an inducement finding. The otherwise defense-favorable ruling in UMG v. Shelter Capital provides some other ideas about information that plaintiffs can seek. Summing all this up, as a practical matter, 512's safe harbor is nifty, but it's an increasingly expensive proposition for both parties. Contrast this with 47 USC 230, where many immunized lawsuits are tossed on a motion to dismiss without any discovery at all. Not only does that allow judges to issue clean and quick rulings, but it saves both plaintiffs and defendants a lot of coin. Note to statutory drafters: it's so important to consider the evidentiary implications of your legislative drafting. The way the statute implicitly allocates discovery costs has a huge substantive effect--especially if the goal is to create a safe harbor or immunity. On this point, even if 512 usually gets to the right result, the safe harbor is miscalibrated from an evidentiary standpoint.

Second, service providers hoping for a 512 safe harbor are often uncertain about what data they should or must retain. After Grokster, UGC sites became nervous about potential inducement liability. As a result, I believe it's become common to recommend that UGC sites flush as much material as quickly as possible (and before litigation becomes "reasonably anticipatable") to reduce the risk that the material will be cited as evidence of inducement or otherwise disqualify the 512 safe harbor. However, UGC sites don't want to look like they are trying to evade the truth or, worse, disrespecting the court (as the defendants in this case might be perceived as doing) or engaged in evidence spoliation, so how should UGC sites strike an appropriate balance? I'd welcome your thoughts about that.

Third, irrespective of how we feel about these particular defendants, their underlying point about the intersection between 17 USC 512 and user privacy is worth considering. 17 USC 512(m) is entitled "Protection of Privacy," so the drafters of 512 recognized the push-pull issue here. Assume for a moment that the defendants in this case honestly wanted to provide their users with private browsing/uploading/downloading, something that might be desirable in the context of these defendants' service. It seems logical that the service provider seeking a privacy-enhanced UGC service would flush its logs, email and disabled files promptly and make those representations to its users. Here, it appears the court would undo those promises, forcing the service provider to retain data it didn't want to keep for the benefit of copyright plaintiffs. I understand that may be our current state of play, but I see the potential for mischief too.

Posted by Eric at 08:20 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Evidence/Discovery , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

December 29, 2011

Ripoff Report May Be "Appalling," But It Still Gets 47 USC 230 Immunity--Giordano v. Romeo

By Eric Goldman

Giordano v. Romeo, 2011 WL 6782933 (Fla. App. Ct. Dec. 28, 2011). [Disclosure note: I joined an amicus brief in support of Ripoff Report's position, written by Paul Levy of Public Citizen]

One sign of a good judge--a judge who can set aside his/her personal feelings to uphold the law when it conflicts. We got one of those rulings in this case. The judge condemns Ripoff Report using some of the harshest language I've seen in a judicial opinion in a while:

The business practices of Xcentric, as presented by the evidence before this Court, are appalling. Xcentric appears to pride itself on having created a forum for defamation. No checks are in place to ensure that only reliable information is publicized. Xcentric retains no general counsel to determine whether its users are availing themselves of its services for the purpose of tortious or illegal conduct. Even when, as here, a user regrets what she has posted and takes every effort to retract it, Xcentric refuses to allow it. Moreover, Xcentric insists in its brief that its policy is never to remove a post. It will not entertain any scenario in which, despite the clear damage that a defamatory or illegal post would continue to cause so long as it remains on the website, Xcentric would remove an offending post. [footnote omitted]

I needed asbestos glasses just to read that.

[As a factual note, Ripoff Report has hedged its "we never remove posts" stance, and it does offer its Corporate Advocacy Program which the court acknowledges in a footnote and a separate arbitration system that the court doesn't note.]

Despite the stinging rebuke of Ripoff Report's basic enterprise, the judge concludes: "However much as this Court may disapprove of business practices like those embraced by Xcentric, the law on this issue is clear. Xcentric enjoys complete immunity from any action brought against it as a result of the postings of third party users of its website."

So true.

Some quick background. In the wake of the Seventh Circuit's Blockowicz ruling, which said that Ripoff Report couldn't be forced to remove a third party post under FRCP 65, a Florida state court judge went off the rails in a similar case. That judge held that 47 USC 230 did not prevent the judge from ordering Ripoff Report to remove the user post. This was a rogue ruling by a judge who clearly wasn't interested in what the law actually said. In an interesting turn, that judge wasn't reelected (the voters apparently got it right on that one!) and the case transferred to a new trial judge, who promptly reversed the ruling and upheld Ripoff Report's 230 immunity.

On appeal, the intermediate appellate court upheld the second trial judge's ruling in a short (and, as you can see, sharp) ruling. In 2001, the Florida Supreme Court, in Doe v. AOL, adopted a broad reading of 230 as Florida law, and this court sees that ruling as dispositive: "Consequently, under Florida law, section 230 of the CDA 'creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.'"

I continue to be skeptical of Ripoff Report's business model (I'll explain more in my forthcoming post on Ascentive v. PissedConsumer), and I continue to have reservations that inaccurate information can remain on the Internet even if judges say it's inaccurate. However, I am even more troubled by judges who simply choose to ignore 47 USC 230, so I'm glad to see the appellate court got to the right result.

UPDATE: Paul Levy comments on the ruling.

Posted by Eric at 09:02 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 27, 2011

UMG v. Shelter Capital: A Cautionary Tale of Rightsowner Overzealousness

By Eric Goldman

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 2011 WL 6357788 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011). My prior blog posts on district court rulings on Veoh’s 512(c) safe harbor and attorneys’ fees/Rule 68.

Make no mistake, web hosts and their investors got a major 512(c) victory in this ruling. The Ninth Circuit, building on its favorable but convoluted ruling in Perfect 10 v. ccBill, wrote a decisive and clear (well, as clear as the 9th Circuit gets...) opinion interpreting the crucial 512(c) safe harbor. This opinion is so comparatively lucid that I plan to substitute it into my Internet Law reader next Fall as a replacement for the Io v. Veoh and Viacom v. YouTube district court rulings.

But also make no mistake: this case reminds us why we need to strike a fair balance between rightsowners and technology providers, or else our system will break down. This case's real result is that Veoh is legal, but Veoh is dead—killed by rightsowner lawfare that bled it dry. Meanwhile, rightsowners wrongly assessed the legality of Veoh, but the worst consequence they suffered was overpaying their lawyers. Indeed, UMG isn’t liable under 17 USC 512(f) for sending bogus takedown notices because they never sent any notices at all., nor is UMG liable for Veoh's attorneys’ fees. UMG’s decision-makers walk away from this car crash, muttering under their breath that the Ninth Circuit misunderstood their brilliant legal arguments, but they still get to go to their cushy jobs tomorrow. The same can’t be said for Veoh, even though it "won." Veoh’s employees? On the street. Veoh’s investors? SOL. Veoh’s community? Kicked to the curb.

This case outcome—Veoh is legal, but Veoh is dead—highlights one of the many reasons why so many people are so opposed to SOPA/PROTECT-IP. Those proposals don’t make rightsowners fully internalize the cost of their actions, such as the economic losses suffered by erroneously accused targets. Of course rightsowners will overclaim when there's no real downside to doing so; that’s just human nature. (And please, I don’t want to hear any BS that rightsowners will never get it wrong. See, e.g., Viacom v. YouTube). Without proper calibration, rightsowner overclaiming threatens to wreck the entire Internet ecosystem.

A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.

Unless (until?) Congress wrecks the Internet with SOPA/PROTECT-IP, 17 USC 512(c) still matters a lot to the Internet ecosystem, and this ruling has a lot of good news for web hosts. It’s a long opinion, as 512 opinions usually are. Some highlights:

* Since its passage, 512(c) has had a crucial ambiguity: did it provide a safe harbor for all three flavors of infringement (direct, contributory, vicarious) or just direct infringement? The legislative history was clear that the safe harbor applied to all three flavors, but the literal text of the statute seemed, by its very terms, to exclude contributory and vicarious infringement. Remarkably, most 512(c) cases sidestepped this fundamental interpretive issue. In contrast, this case confronts it head-on and, perhaps for the first time in an appellate ruling, indicates that 512(c) applies to all three flavors of infringement. For example, the court says:

Given Congress’ explicit intention to protect qualifying service providers who would otherwise be subject to vicarious liability, it would be puzzling for Congress to make § 512(c) entirely coextensive with the vicarious liability requirements, which would effectively exclude all vicarious liability claims from the § 512(c) safe harbor….Although in some cases service providers subject to vicarious liability will be excluded from the § 512(c) safe harbor, in others they will not.

To achieve this outcome, the Ninth Circuit says that “right and ability to control”—language that appears in both the standard test for vicarious copyright infringement and as an exclusion to 512(c)’s availability—means different things in those contexts. I presume the same applies to “direct financial interest,” though that didn’t come up here. Notice this is a result only lawyers could love: the exact same words have different meanings depending on whether they are in the plaintiff’s prima facie case or in the defendant’s affirmative defense.

The good news is that the opinion reads “right and ability to control” as dependent on knowing of specific problems that need to be remediated, like the Viacom v. YouTube opinion did:

a service provider must be aware of specific infringing material to have the ability to control that infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B). Only then would its failure to exercise its ability to control deny it a safe harbor….A service provider’s general right and ability to remove materials from its services is, alone, insufficient. Of course, a service provider cannot willfully bury its head in the sand to avoid obtaining such specific knowledge.

Unfortunately, the last sentence reminds me a little of the gratuitous dicta in Tiffany v. eBay about "willful blindness," which trademark plaintiffs have already started to mine. Trying to scrounge for any angle, I'm sure copyright plaintiffs will start digging around for evidence that service providers buried their head in the sand, making the most tendentious interpretations of fact that aren't damning in the least.

* UMG argued that 512(c) only provided a safe harbor for personal cloud storage. Under this reading, the moment a file stored in the cloud was available to third parties, 512(c) dropped away. The court brushed away UMG’s argument, and I can’t believe UMG thought it was worth pressing. The argument made no sense historically (no one was offering personal cloud storage lockers when the DMCA was passed), it contravened numerous provisions in the statute that clearly suggested otherwise, it would have conflicted with a long list of precedent cases that applied 512(c) to public hosting, and it’s almost impossible to construct a fact pattern where a user uploading to a personal cloud locker commits copyright infringement (or that a copyright owner would learn about this storage sufficient to send a 512(c)(3) notice specifying the file’s location).

As a corollary, 512(c) applies even if the service provider slices-and-dices the user-submitted file, such as transcoding the file and extracting metadata. This is consistent with earlier 512(c) cases, but now it’s Ninth Circuit law.

* The court rejects UMG’s many arguments that Veoh had impermissible scienter. UMG’s hubris was insane. For example, UMG argued that Veoh hosted music videos, and that because it didn’t have licenses to the music, its general knowledge categorically disqualifies Veoh from 512(c). The court shreds UMG’s argument, noting that Veoh did have direct arrangements with music video producers, and UMG’s argument (if you host music, you must know you’re infringing) would negate the entire 512(c) safe harbor. Instead, the court emphasizes the importance of the notice-and-takedown scheme in 512(c) because “Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.” Thus, the court “hold[s] that merely hosting a category of copyrightable content, such as music videos, with the general knowledge that one’s services could be used to share infringing material, is insufficient to meet the actual knowledge requirement.” Nor can such knowledge count as a “red flag.”

The court isn’t any more impressed with UMG’s argument that Veoh bought Google Adwords keyed to the names of UMG artists like 50 Cent, Avril Lavigne and Britney Spears. The court responds:

50 Cent, Avril Lavigne and Britney Spears are also affiliated with Sony-BMG, which gave Veoh permission to stream its videos by these artists. Furthermore, even if Veoh had not had such permission, we recognize that companies sometimes purchase search terms they believe will lead potential customers to their websites even if the terms do not describe goods or services the company actually provides. For example, a sunglass company might buy the search terms “sunscreen” or “vacation” because it believed that people interested in such searches would often also be interested in sunglasses. Accordingly, Veoh’s search term purchases do little to demonstrate that it knew it hosted infringing material.

I wouldn't rely on the Ninth Circuit for SEM advice, but did the court really say that a site can buy the keyword “Britney Spears” to reach teeny-boppers, even if the site doesn’t offer any Britney Spears music? Hmm...

The court also rejects UMG’s argument that takedown notices from the RIAA should have prompted Veoh to go find additional videos from the same artists mentioned in the takedown notices. As ccBill said, service providers don’t have that affirmative investigatory duty; it remains solely on copyright owners’ shoulders.

Finally, the court rejects UMG’s efforts to dig up old newspaper quotes from Veoh executives acknowledging that their site contained infringing material. The court appropriately notes that 512(c) assumes UGC sites will contain some infringing items. That’s why copyright owners should send takedown notices, and why they shouldn't bitch if they don’t.

One sour note: The court says that a user-submitted complaint that he’d seen infringing content on the site, and fingering a specific other user, could constitute a "red flag of infringement" even if the user complaint didn’t constitute a 512(c)(3) notice. UMG didn't make any progress here based on the specific facts, but unfortunately the Ninth Circuit opened up the door for copyright owners looking for notifications from non-copyright owners that the copyright owners can turn into red flags. Of course they are going to find such notices; what UGC site hasn’t gotten dragged into intra-user disputes? Unfortunately, 512(c) discovery is already ridiculously expensive, and hunts for needles in the haystack like this only add to everyone’s costs—with almost no payoff because sites should be free to ignore user gripes (non-512(c)(3) notices) in their considered judgments. Until the Ninth Circuit fixes this in a future opinion, this sloppy discussion means UGC sites must address non-512(c)(3) gripes about potential copyright infringement at peril of being accused of having red flags of infringement. This isn’t what Congress intended, so it’s a bummer the otherwise-solid opinion went off the rails here.

* The ruling absolved Veoh’s investors of liability. In a footnote, the court recognizes the importance of keeping investors free of liability, especially when the site actually qualifies for the 512(c) safe harbor:

Congress was no doubt well aware that service providers can make the desired investment only if they receive funding from investors like the Investor Defendants. Although we do not decide the matter today, were we to hold that Veoh was protected, but its investors were not, investors might hesitate to provide the necessary funding to companies like Veoh, and Congress’ purpose in passing the DMCA would be undermined.

The court says that UMG isn’t arguing that funding a venture is enough to create liability; the investors must be involved with the business operations. The court tries not to overrule one of the Napster district court rulings regarding investor liability by saying that, in the Napster case, only one investor (Bertlesmann) was involved with Napster. So long as there are more than 1 investor—and frankly, when won’t that be the case?—each individual investor can’t have sufficient control to trigger liability. In response, UMG tried to argue that Veoh had three outside board members from investors and they collectively controlled the board, but the court said UMG didn’t adequately allege that they were in cahoots with each other.

It would have been so much better if the court had just rejected investor liability outright rather than nose-counting board seats and agreements among board members. Expect copyright owners to impose discovery heck on investors, looking for any evidence that smacks of coordinated efforts among them, and expect rightsowners to make mountains out of molehills like stockholders’ agreements. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit opinion has enough language to raise the bar on investor lawsuits that district courts should toss these efforts on summary judgment (the needle-in-haystack discovery hunts are going to make motions to dismiss hard). Let’s hope the district courts set the bar high enough that copyright owners eventually get discouraged in pursuing investors.

* The ruling basically eliminates FRCP 68 for copyright cases (and presumably any other statutes that have express fee-shifting provisions). Rule 68 says that if a defendants offers a jdugment, is refused, but then achieves final results better than the settlement offer, the plaintiff must pay all attorneys’ fees after the offer. The idea is to motivate plaintiffs to accept fair settlement proposals—they have to be so confident they’ll do better the settlement offer because they have to pay off the defendant if they are wrong. Rule 68 provides a useful tool from a game theory standpoint, but the court eviscerates it for copyright cases. The court says that Rule 68 offers can pay off only if the judge chooses to award attorneys’ fees under 17 USC 505. No 505 fee shift, no Rule 68 fee shift. But, why is Rule 68 needed if the judge has to make a 505 fee award anyway? This makes no sense. Rebecca discusses this issue in more detail.

I know a lot of folks are interested in how this case affects Viacom v. YouTube. The news is all good for Google. First, until the Second Circuit issues its opinion, this opinion is the new high water mark for 512(c) cases; and it is the governing law of the Ninth Circuit. Second, I imagine the Second Circuit panel will take a look at this opinion, and they may choose to defer to it. The opinion isn’t airtight analytically, but it’s persuasive enough. Third, in the unlikely situation that Google loses in the Second Circuit, this opinion sets up the possibility of a bona fide circuit split that might open the door for a Supreme Court appeal.

Other coverage of the case:

* Techdirt
* Rebecca (focusing on Rule 68)
* EFF
* Michael Barclay

Posted by Eric at 08:19 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 23, 2011

Academic Literature Recap, Q4 2011

By Eric Goldman

I'm mired in grading heck, slogging my way through 146 exams. As a result, blogging has taken a back seat. I have several key items to blog, including the UMG v. Shelter Capital and Ascentive v. Opinion Corp. rulings. I'll get to these and other topics soon.

In the interim, just in time for the holidays, let me call your attention to some recent academic articles that caught my eye this quarter. They may be worth checking out during your holidays. Happy reading!
____________

Bevin Ashenmiller and Catherine Shelley Norman, Measuring the Impact of Anti-SLAPP Legislation on Monitoring and Enforcement, The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 11: Iss. 1 (Topics), Article 67 (2011). The abstract:

We examine changes in environmental monitoring and enforcement activity in the presence of state legislation prohibiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP laws). Using data on the Clean Air Act from the Environmental Protection Agency’s ECHO database, we find evidence that state inspections increase by almost 50% after a state passes anti-SLAPP legislation. In addition, we find strong evidence that the ratio of findings of noncompliance to inspections more than doubles in the presence of anti-SLAPP legislation.

____________

danah boyd, Eszter Hargittai, Jason Schultz & John Palfrey, Why parents help their children lie to Facebook about age: Unintended consequences of the ‘Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’, First Monday, Volume 16, Number 11 - 7 November 2011. The abstract:

Facebook, like many communication services and social media sites, uses its Terms of Service (ToS) to forbid children under the age of 13 from creating an account. Such prohibitions are not uncommon in response to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which seeks to empower parents by requiring commercial Web site operators to obtain parental consent before collecting data from children under 13. Given economic costs, social concerns, and technical issues, most general–purpose sites opt to restrict underage access through their ToS. Yet in spite of such restrictions, research suggests that millions of underage users circumvent this rule and sign up for accounts on Facebook. Given strong evidence of parental concern about children’s online activity, this raises questions of whether or not parents understand ToS restrictions for children, how they view children’s practices of circumventing age restrictions, and how they feel about children’s access being regulated. In this paper, we provide survey data that show that many parents know that their underage children are on Facebook in violation of the site’s restrictions and that they are often complicit in helping their children join the site. Our data suggest that, by creating a context in which companies choose to restrict access to children, COPPA inadvertently undermines parents’ ability to make choices and protect their children’s data. Our data have significant implications for policy–makers, particularly in light of ongoing discussions surrounding COPPA and other age–based privacy laws.

This article stirred up a fair amount of discussion. See, e.g., the CNET coverage.

Some notes about this article:

* no one looks good here: not the kids, parents, Facebook or Congress.
- Parents teach children how to lie to get what they want online
- Gilmore’s law that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. COPPA has been a success at getting websites to shun kids 12 and under, but it’s been a complete failure at protecting kids online.
- all of the lying kids are presumptively engaged in criminal activity

* when kids are asked to represent themselves as older than they actually are, do they inadvertently put themselves in more adult situations than they can handle? See my post on mistake of age defenses.

* the policy implications of this report cut in both directions. Pro-regulation: the only way to keep kids off Facebook is to do mandatory age authentication that parents can’t game; or do comprehensive privacy regulation. Anti-regulation: COPPA was a bust, so we should repeal it or structurally modify it.
____________

Felix T. Wu, Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 101 (2011). We don't have too many law professor papers really grokking 47 USC 230, which makes this paper instantly noteworthy. Felix presented this paper at our 47 USC 230 fiesta earlier this year. His conclusion:

Intermediary immunity can and should play an important role in protecting speech on the Internet. Immunity prevents the application of laws targeted at original speakers to intermediaries that lack the incentives of original speakers to speak. Immunity can thus be used to avoid the collateral censorship of lawful, socially desirable speech that poses a real or perceived risk of liability to intermediaries. At the same time, immunity can and should be limited. When intermediaries are actually original speakers, and have the incentives of original speakers, immunity is no longer appropriate. Similarly, immunity as to causes of action that are specifically targeted at intermediaries inappropriately prejudges the reasonableness of such liability.

Even ardent supporters of intermediary immunity would be well-served to recognize its limits. When immunity becomes unbounded, it begins to seem increasingly unfair, stimulating calls to cut back on the immunity, or even eliminate it entirely. The framework developed here demonstrates how, without any need to amend current law, we can limit the immunity, while still serving its core purposes.

James Grimmelmann's comments about the paper.
____________

Sandra L. Rierson, The Myth and Reality of Dilution, 2012 Duke Law & Tech. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2012). From the introduction:

This Article advances three claims. First, statutory dilution erroneously assumes that the source-identifying function of a trademark is a rivalrous good and one that is dissipated by use. This assumption lacks empirical support, and is assuredly not categorically true despite the contrary principle that underlies the federal dilution statute. If marks are nonrivalrous, as they often are, no cause of action for dilution should exist.

Second, even were particular marks indeed rivalrous, the social and transaction costs imposed by the federal dilution statute would still outweigh the supposed harm to trademark holders. Dilution claims inflict profound anticompetitive burdens, preclude beneficial comparative advertising, and entrench dominant (often oligopolist) firms at the expense of market entrants. Dilution has serious non-economic costs as well and prohibits protected First Amendment speech without justification. For these reasons and others, the federal dilution statute imposes substantially more harm than it (allegedly) prevents.

Finally, the true foundation for the federal dilution statute lies not in alleged economic harms, but rather results from an entirely misplaced fiction of corporate personality. We do not require trademark holders to prove actual economic injury in the context of a dilution claim because, in truth, there is none. Instead, we have granted the holders of famous trademarks the equivalent of a “moral” right to these marks: an extension of the rights granted to a creator of an expressive work in the copyright context. Trademark owners feel vested in their brands, many of which are deliberately anthropomorphized, and the dilution statute reifies and protects these rights as a matter of federal law.

Stacey Dogan's cogent critique of the article. You may recall that in 2007, SCU convened a major academic conference on trademark dilution.
____________

Lydia Pallas Loren, Deterring Abuse of the Copyright Takedown Regime by Taking Misrepresentation Claims Seriously, 46 Wake Forest L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2011). A nice in-depth look into one of my favorite topics, 17 USC 512(f), by one of my favorite authors. The conclusion:

The takedown provisions of the Copyright Act are a powerful tool that copyright owners may use to obtain prompt removal of infringing material from the Internet without judicial assessment of the assertion of infringement. Congress provided a mechanism to deter abuse of this extrajudicial enforcement mechanism in the form of a new cause of action for material misrepresentation. Courts should interpret the requirements for prevailing on a claim of misrepresentation with an eye toward fulfilling Congressional intent. This means using a standard that would hold copyright owners liable not only when they had actual knowledge that the material targeted for takedown was not infringing, but also when the copyright owner should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence that the material was lawful. It also means interpreting the injury requirement broadly and awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs. Taking the claims of misrepresentation seriously will shape the behavior of copyright owners who seek removal of material through takedown notices.

Posted by Eric at 07:55 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Privacy/Security , Trademark | TrackBack

December 20, 2011

Hyundai Gets a Pass from the FTC on Endorsement Issues, in Part Due to Its Social Media Policy

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with updated comments from Eric]

In re Hyundai Motor America, FTC File No. 112-3110 (Nov. 16, 2011) [.pdf]

We've posted on the FTC endorsement guidelines, which broadly require disclosure of relationships, and incentives provided to those who endorse products or companies. ("FTC Dings PR Firm for Fake Reviews -- In re Reverb Communications"; "FTC Drops Investigation of Advertiser Who Gave Gifts to Bloggers"; "FTC Online Endorsement Guidelines Strike Again - FTC Dings Legacy Learning Over Allegedly Misleading Affiliate Reviews.") The FTC recently closed an investigation on Hyundai, whose marketing agency gave bloggers gift certificates as an incentive to "include links to Hyundai videos in their posts and/or to comment on . . . forthcoming Super Bowl ads." You can access a copy of the FTC's closing letter here [.pdf].

The FTC provided two reasons for why it closed the investigation into Hyundai's promotions:

- Hyundai did not know in advance about the incentives, which were offered by an employee of Hyundai's marketing agency.
- offering an incentive to post about or endorse a Hyundai product was contrary to the social media policies of both Hyundai and its marketing agency.

It was challenging to me to make sense of the FTC's decisions under its endorsement guidelines. Thus far, the FTC has taken action against entities who directly violate the rules (Reverb), or those who have an active role in encouraging reviews or endorsements which violate the endorsement guidelines (Legacy Learning). It seems that entities that haplessly dole out gifts with the unarticulated expectation of reciprocation in the form of an endorsement have yet to come under the FTC's knife (see this investigation and Ann Taylor). Meanwhile, the FTC seems to have given celebrities--who reportedly shill for products and companies on a regular basis without accompanying disclosures--a free pass.

The FTC's reliance on the social media policies of Hyundai and its marketing agency is interesting and yet another data point in favor of adopting a social media policy. Query as to whether the FTC's reliance on these policies is inconsistent? The FTC doesn't seem to accept affiliate agreements at face value for the proposition that companies are policing their affiliates. It's odd for the FTC to accept a social media policy for the same purpose.

Update: The FTC's Business Center blog has a nice explanation for the FTC's rationale in this matter. ("Using social media in your marketing? Staff closing letter is worth a read.") The FTC recommends following the M.M.M. approach:

1) Mandate a disclosure policy that complies with the law;
2) Make sure people who work for you or with you know what the rules are; and
3) Monitor what they're doing on your behalf.

Other coverage:

FTC Closes an Investigation Into a Blogging Promotion

Related posts:

"FTC Dings PR Firm for Fake Reviews -- In re Reverb Communications"
"FTC Drops Investigation of Advertiser Who Gave Gifts to Bloggers"
"FTC Online Endorsement Guidelines Strike Again - FTC Dings Legacy Learning Over Allegedly Misleading Affiliate Reviews"
____________

Eric's Updated Comments

1) The FTC Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines are confusing to everyone, even the FTC. Recall the public discord they had over whether Ashton Kutcher broke the rules. I remain skeptical that the FTC understands what it said in its own rules.

2) Regardless of what they said, the FTC's goals are clear: they hate inauthentic content online, and that includes content that might be financially motivated without sufficient disclosure to the reader/viewer. If they could wave their magic wand and eliminate all that content from the Internet deus ex machina, they would.

3) Unfortunately for the FTC, they can't wave their magic wand, so they have to bring enforcement actions. But they have made it 100% clear that they really do not want to go after individual bloggers--even though the bloggers are the ones who the FTC thinks are actually violating the Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines. It makes sense that the FTC doesn't want to chase individual bloggers, who are multitudinous and often legally unsophisticated, but it means the FTC refuses to go after the most responsible individuals.

4) Because the FTC won't go after the direct violators, they are casting a net for other folks to hold responsible. I've previously raised the concern that such trawling for secondary violators is impermissible under 47 USC 230, a statute the FTC wishes didn't exist. Because they are going after the secondary players with a weak theoretical justification for holding the secondary players responsible while not simultaneously enforcing the rules against the principal players, the FTC is effectively developing its rules on the fly. Not surprisingly, such an ad hoc development of rules can be hard to keep consistent.

5) Because the FTC doesn't want to unfairly impose liability on secondary players for actions they can't necessarily control, the FTC has made it quite clear that it expects advertisers playing in the financially-motivated online content space to do the following:

* tell bloggers not to break the law
* tell their agents not to break the law
* double-check after-the-fact to see if anyone has broken the law and undertake efforts to remediate those violations

This may seem a little silly and formalistic as a way of complying with the Endorsement and Testimonial Guidelines, but it appears like it's enough to satisfy the FTC.

6) As Venkat points out, the FTC's position here may be harder to reconcile with the FTC's position about other forms of liability based on affiliate actions, where the FTC may not be OK with simply including "comply with the law" provisions in the contracts and doing after-the-fact spot checking. If the FTC is going to hold advertisers liable for third party actions--a paradigm I think they should categorically abandon, especially in light of 47 USC 230--then it would be great if the FTC would publicly reconcile these different attitudes towards third party liability. Given the FTC's steadfast refusal to provide bright-line rules that might limit its future discretion, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such clarification.

Posted by Venkat at 07:44 PM | Derivative Liability , Marketing

Twelve Comments Filed in Response to Copyright Office Proposal to Amend 512 Designation Requirements

By Eric Goldman

With all of the focus on SOPA/PIPA/OPEN, it's easy to lose sight that a Copyright Office proposal seriously jeopardizes the 17 USC 512 online safe harbors for many service providers. Specifically, the Copyright Office proposes to expire existing agent designations and then require periodic maintenance of designations or they too will be expired. In both situations, a service provider without a designated agent instantly loses all 512(c)/512(d) eligibility--even if the failure was an administrative accident or mistake, and even if the service provider properly filed a valid designation initially. Worse yet, the Copyright Office hasn't shown how the existing database causes problems for copyright owners, so the Copyright Office is proposing to jeopardize these essential safe harbors for no apparent gain to anyone else.

In response to the Copyright Office's proposal, twelve comments were submitted, including the comment that I submitted with the EFF and Jason Schultz. Regarding the proposal to expire existing designations and require periodic maintenance of future designations, the comments broke out as follows:

AGAINST: EFF/Schultz/Goldman, Public Knowledge, Microsoft, CCIA, Matthew Neco
FOR: RIAA, Verizon/Internet Commerce Coalition (I treat these as identical because Verizon is a member of ICC, and their points were similar)
AMBIGUOUS: MPAA (seemingly leaning against the proposal but equivocal)

The CCIA’s opposition on this issue was well-stated: "it would be unsound and inconsistent with Section 512 to attempt to revoke the safe harbor and impose liability on services who do not resubmit contact information to the Office which the Office already has…Proposed § 201.38 is itself a formality which -- at least as described in the NOPR -- may also impose harsh penalties for failing to prepare redundant paperwork at the proper time."

Some of the “AGAINST” comments wondered if the Copyright Office has the power to terminate a validly filed designation, because doing so creates a forfeiture and apparently exceeds the authority that Congress provided to the Copyright Office. I do hope the Copyright Office will consider the administrative law issues carefully before doing something that leads to an expensive lawsuit over its authority.

Some other interesting points raised in the filings:

* the RIAA made several aggressive proposals, including (1) a requirement that "the service provider...disclose any shareholders or related groups of shareholders (such as a family) with a majority ownership of the service provider; and any persons or entities with a controlling interest in or decision making power over the service provider," and (2) "the Copyright Office require proof of the business address of the service provider, perhaps by requiring the entity to scan a piece of business correspondence and attach it to the designation as a PDF." I don’t see it as the Copyright Office’s responsibility to validate service providers’ self-reported information, and I thought the requirement to disclose related entities was overreaching and creates traps for the unwary.

* Microsoft proposed "that the Office consider issuing OSPs a unique identification number corresponding to their submission of a designation of agent, and requiring the OSP to post this number where it also posts information about its DMCA agent and its process for submitting notices of claimed infringement. This requirement would enable users of the OSP directory to easily link a particular website with the DMCA agent designation (and related records) maintained by the Copyright Office." While this proposal would solve one set of problems, I don’t think the Copyright Office has the authority to require the publication of this unique ID as a condition of the online safe harbor.

* Google believes only written takedown notices should satisfy the 512 requirements:

We urge the Office, however, to also note that takedown notices sent to designated agents must be in the form of a written communication. We are concerned that the clarifications and the availability of a phone number do not lead to a requirement that service providers designate a specific person to be contacted for voice communication or that leaving of takedown notices be authorized via phone calls or voice mail. Accepting takedown requests via phone or voicemail would present a multitude of problems: for example, lack of documentation to send on to the alleged infringer, lack of signature, problems with verifying identity, detecting abuse, lack of accurate metrics, scalability, and potential differences of opinion about what was identified.

While I completely agree about the problems of non-written takedown notifications, I’m pretty sure 512 doesn’t give the Copyright Office the power to effectuate this request.

* The Verizon/ICC filings encouraged the Copyright Office to warn rightsowners not to misuse takedown notices. For example, the ICC filing says "we urge the Copyright Office to post a prominent notice at the entry point to the database warning entities submitting DMCA notices that knowing material misrepresentations in 512(c) notices may trigger monetary liability."

* The ICC filing also gave a specific example of the privacy issues raised by the designated agent database:

One woman who works as a designated agent for one of our member companies has received harassing “stalking-type” messages from people who are not copyright owners, but found her name through an agent designation. For precisely this sort of reason, it is important to allow email addresses of designated agents to reflect their function, rather than their name, and to allow designated agents to list P.O. Boxes as their address, wherever their address is a home address.

I frequently use the designated agent database to find contact information for a company when other resources fail me.

* The MiMTiD filing was a piece of work. It appears to misunderstand the existing 512 safe harbors, and most of it is just a rant against Google.

If you want to comment on the Copyright Office proposals, do so quickly. Reply comments are due December 27.

Posted by Eric at 08:00 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

December 10, 2011

The OPEN Act: Significantly Flawed But More Salvageable Than SOPA/PROTECT-IP

By Eric Goldman

Sen. Wyden and Rep. Issa have released a draft of OPEN: Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act, intended as an alternative to SOPA/PROTECT-IP. See my prior posts opposing SOPA and linkwrapping the discussion. Unlike SOPA's disgustingly blatant rent-seeking, which was such an over-the-top abuse of the legislative process that it did not (and could not) support a principled or even intelligent conversations about it, OPEN provides a useful starting point for a sensible conversation that could actually lead to acceptable compromises. For that reason alone, I think Congress should immediately stop all work on SOPA/PROTECT-IP and redirect that energy towards vetting this proposal. Having said that, for reasons I'll explain in a moment, I continue to believe the assumptions underlying SOPA/PROTECT-IP and OPEN are misguided, meaning that forging a compromise from OPEN’s more sensible proposal may be tricky.

Before I get further into substance, two process notes:

First, SOPA was the product of rent-seekers who were talking only amongst themselves and legislators tethered to their campaign contributions. The drafting process was disturbingly closed-door and exclusionary, exactly the kind we wish didn't take place in our representative democracy. In contrast, the OPEN sponsors want to have a dialogue about their ideas. In support of that, they have posted the draft to a website that allows comments and discussion. This is the way our democracy SHOULD work. Why is such an open process the exception instead of the rule?

Second, OPEN is a comparatively svelte 18 pages focused mostly on one core concept, compared to SOPA's 78 page monstrosity that advanced about a dozen different substantive proposals. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen very smart people stymied to keep all of SOPA's moving parts separate, and the failure to do so meant that they were conflating different parts of the statute in ways that prevented productive discussion. (Just two examples: the Colbert Report, where Zittrain mostly focused on SOPA's felony streaming provision while his counterpart was mostly talking about the cutoff provisions; and Business Insider's infographic where the felony streaming sanction was presented as a remedy to the cutoff provisions). By reducing the number of topics at issue, OPEN substantially reduces the chance that policy discussants will simply talk past each other.

An Overview

The law contemplates that rightsowners can file a petition against rogue websites at the ITC, an independent federal agency best known for its adjudication of certain patent disputes. In response to the rightsowners’ petition, the ITC will conduct an administrative adjudication. If the ITC determines that the website is a rogue website, then (1) the website is required to cease its conduct (not sure how enforceable that is), (2) the site also will be subject to any other unspecified consequences following from its determination as a rogue actor, and (3) most importantly, the rightsowner can take the ITC determination to payment service providers (PSPs) and ad networks and have them cut off the flow of money to the rogue website. The PSPs and ad networks would be protected by several immunities for trying to comply with the orders or their other efforts to protect the public.

This makes OPEN similar to SOPA in that it seeks to cut off funds flowing to rogue actors. However, among other key differences, PSPs and ad networks have no legal obligations until the ITC makes a ruling. In contrast, SOPA imposed cutoff obligations on PSPs and ad networks based merely on rightsowners’ unsubstantiated assertions.

What's Good

Substantively, some of the things I liked about OPEN:

* it situates the discussion about "rogue websites" in foreign trade policy. This fixes SOPA's overinclusive application to both domestic and foreign actors. However, if we really think rogue websites are a transborder enforcement problem, there are many other trade policy solutions that might be better options to consider—the most obvious being transborder enforcement coordination like the FTC does with its foreign counterparts.

* OPEN doesn’t touch the domain name system or search engines. SOPA had the potential to destroy the DNS and to jeopardize search engine functioning. OPEN sidesteps both pitfalls.

* OPEN builds in some due process before any formal legal obligations attach. As we've recently seen, due process is actually quite important, and we suffer from its absence. I say “some” due process because I’m not sure how much due process will attach in practice. For example, I have some concerns about the notice provision--not every targeted website will receive notice of the ITC investigation. However, I did like that any website the ITC labels as rogue can correct any identified problems, reapproach the ITC and ask it to remove the “rogue” determination.

* the definition of rogue website is tightened up substantially. It requires three elements:
a) a "non-domestic domain name," which requires that the registry, registrar and registrant all have to be located outside the US (I'm not sure what "located" means in this context). Venkat asked me what happens to a .com registered with a foreign registrar; I believe OPEN does not apply to this domain name.
b) conducting business in the US; and
c) "has only limited purpose or use other than engaging in infringing activity and whose owner or operator primarily uses the site to willfully engage in infringing activity."

The last element, in particular, is quite restrictive by requiring willful infringement. The meaning of the word "willful" is notoriously murky (see, e.g., the multitudinous Supreme Court cases over the word), so the statute would be improved by using a more detailed synonym. No matter what, though, willful is a high scienter level that should easily exclude most legitimate players. The statute further expressly excludes any sites that:

- follow good notice-and-takedown procedures
- qualify for 17 USC 512 (the DMCA online safe harbors) [this means that the statute sits next to 512 instead of rendering 512 moot like SOPA threatened to do], or
- distribute "copies that were made without infringing a copyright or trademark." I’m not 100% sure what this means. It apparently excludes websites reselling goods covered by the First Sale doctrine. I presume that the exclusion includes sites that sell legitimate knock-off goods, such as replicas of goods that aren’t protected by copyrights or trademarks.

* if a PSP or ad network fails to comply with an ITC order, the only consequence is that the DOJ can seek injunctive relief. Rightsowners do not have a private cause of action in those cases. As discussed below, this doesn't eliminate all PSP/ad network exposure to rightsowners, but rightsowners can't introduce evidence of ITC orders in any civil suits they bring against PSPs or ad networks.

* on the trademark side, it expressly limits its applicability to counterfeiting (although there is a erroneous cross-reference in the draft). Presumably, dilution or garden-variety trademark infringement disputes don't qualify under the statute.

What's Not Good

Substantively, some of the things I don't like about OPEN:

* OPEN still contemplates reestablishing a Fortress USA. Fortress USA marginally makes sense regarding the shipment of physical goods across geographic borders. It makes zero sense for digital bits zinging around the borderless network.

* in particular, because OPEN would burden only US-governed PSPs and ad networks, it may drive websites—including legitimate websites who want to reduce their risk of being mistargeted—to shift their business to foreign-based PSPs and ad networks. If lots of businesses make a switch based on these concerns, OPEN could counterproductively result in net financial losses for the US economy.

* similarly, foreign websites can opt-out entirely of the ITC process by consenting to US judicial jurisdiction. I like the idea of an opt-out, but imagine if other countries offered the same quid-pro-quo of allowing US websites to opt-out of some nasty foreign process so long as the websites consent to jurisdiction in their countries. I think we’d be outraged and insulted; which is how I would expect foreign countries to view this quid-pro-quo. Cf. Venkat's recent post on Facebook v. Faceporn. Then again, other countries might think it’s a pretty good idea, leading to a proliferation of transborder quid-pro-quo jurisdictional offers.

* designating the ITC to conduct the investigations is a little odd. First, the ITC is an administrative agency, not a federal court. I don't fully understand all of the implications of administrative vs. judicial review, but I believe there are substantial procedural differences that could lead to important substantive differences. Second, the ITC has been gamed in the patent world (see, e.g., my colleague Colleen Chien's research on the ITC explaining how the ITC hears many US company vs. US company disputes), so I fear similar gaming will emerge. For example, a rightsowner chasing a rogue website could simultaneously pursue a domestic court action, a foreign court action and an ITC proceeding. How would these types of parallel proceedings play out in practice? We’re still trying to resolve the parallel proceeding problems in patents.

* like SOPA, the bill covers copyright infringement, trademark infringement *and* 1201 circumvention. I don't understand why the circumvention issue is getting equal billing or how often transborder circumventions are a real problem. Seeing how 1201 circumvention lawsuits have devolved into anti-competitive enforcements, picking up the circumvention piece could increase the risk of competitive misuse of the statute.

* like SOPA, the definitions are vague. Consider, for example, the definition of Internet advertising service:

The term Internet advertising service means a service that serves an online advertisement in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site.

Hmm...what does that mean? Notice that the definition doesn't directly distinguish between third-party ad networks and sites that sell their own ads. I think in practice sites that sell their own ads drop out of the statute, so one possible implication is that more sites will ramp up their own ad sales. (This is doubtful, but just throwing the possibility out there). I think the focus on "viewable" is interesting; are audio-only ads excluded? And what does it mean to "serve" content? This contemplates a specific technological interaction that I don't fully understand today and will almost certainly evolve over time.

Why I’m Not Enthusiastic About OPEN

Even though OPEN is worth discussing intelligently, unlike SOPA, I believe it's based on two underlying assumptions that aren’t fixable.

First, like SOPA, OPEN assumes there is a problem with foreign rogue websites that needs to be solved. I'm not saying there isn't, but the policy discussions have been startlingly devoid of reliable and credible facts demonstrating the nature and scope of the problem.

Instead, the evidence in support of a rogue website "problem" typically consists of two main threads: (a) people are dying from counterfeit drugs, and (b) bad guys are "stealing" our stuff. With respect to the former, I've never seen anything more than ad hoc assertion; but if there’s a real problem, counterfeit drugs can be fixed with a highly targeted solution. With respect to the latter, it's hard to give those arguments much credit. After all, all of rightsowners’ arguments are inherently self-interested: it's in their financial interest to say that they would like to make more money than they are making. It's also in their interest to bemoan broad sectoral changes in the economy as evidence that someone is capturing money they think they are entitled to (and to use rent-seeking to thwart those broad sectoral changes). More importantly, there is lots of evidence that a lot of rightsowners are making a lot of money today, both via the Internet and more generally. So it's hard to break out the quantity of actual economic losses that rightsowners are truly suffering when those claims are intermingled with rightsowners’ general rent-seeking efforts.

Therefore, until the rightsowners offer us more than the trumped-up BS already-discredited statistics, I'm still not clear on the problem, how bad it is, how any legislative solution would remediate that problem, and if the collateral consequences of the effort to remediate the problem are greater or less than the problem itself. OPEN does nothing to fill the void of supporting foundational evidence of the problem, so it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about its solution.

Second, and more importantly, attacking the money supply to supposed bad actors remains too blunt an instrument. I may be truly on my own on this point, as many people I respect--including, notably, Rep. Lofgren--are prepared to embrace the policy solution of cutting off money flows. However, by embracing an attack on the movement of money, OPEN replicates one of SOPA's sins. If a player is engaged in legitimate and illegitimate activity and its money supply is cut off, both activities go down the tubes. In contrast, one of the positive aspects of 17 USC 512(c) and (d) is that they require the copyright owner to identify infringing items and target only those items. Giving rightsowners a remedy that would affect an entire site for only some items on the site goes too far.

The OPEN bill tries hard to minimize overbreadth by narrowly defining the targeted websites. Perhaps this definition is narrow enough that there won't be much collateral damage. However, in practice, regulating money flows nevertheless could have pernicious effects in the field. A PSP or ad network drawn into an ITC proceeding frequently will “voluntarily” choose to toss the targeted website before the ITC proceeding reaches its conclusion—even if the ITC proceeding would have rejected the challenge. Furthermore, rightsowners still will send cutoff notices to PSPs/ad networks without filing any ITC petition, and the PSPs/ad networks will often honor them as a way of preempting an ITC proceeding.

What this teaches me (in combination with the Elsevier v. Chitika case) is that PSPs and ad networks need robust statutory immunities which are not based on a notice-and-takedown scheme. On the trademark side, the need for an immunity became clear after the sloppy language in Gucci v. Frontline. On the copyright side, 512 doesn’t cover PSPs and ad networks, probably because in a million years the safe harbor drafters never thought PSPs and ad networks would be liable for third party infringing activity in the first place. Now that we've seen copyright law and trademark law creep much further than we could have imagined in 1998, we should plug this liability hole completely. If OPEN proceeds, it should have a broad-based immunity for PSPs and ad networks with the idea that rightsowners are getting a specific remedy against them in the new law.

While OPEN can’t really be fixed to resolve my two structural concerns, my hope is that the discussion about OPEN will force rightsowners to provide *credible* evidence of harms that they or consumers are suffering (no more self-serving hype, please), and that such evidence will force us to think carefully about how "rifle shot" solutions (as opposed to shotgun solutions) can ameliorate those harms. If we have a discourse that even slightly resembles this ideal, then OPEN will be successful no matter what final outcome we reach.

Posted by Eric at 09:55 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

December 07, 2011

I Don't Heart SOPA or PROTECT-IP: A Linkwrap

By Eric Goldman

Venkat and I have been covering SOPA and related topics. In case you missed our posts:

* Why I Oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/E-PARASITES Act

* Court OKs Private Seizure of Domain Names Which Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Goods--Chanel, Inc. v. Does

* Ad Network Avoids Contributory Copyright Infringement for Serving Ads to a Rogue Website--Elsevier v. Chitika

Next week, SOPA is supposed to go to committee markup. In anticipation of that, some of the SOPA-related links from the past few weeks that have caught my attention:

* Bose v. Ejaz (D. Mass Nov. 7, 2011). Paypal cut off funds transfers to an International eBay merchant at the request of Bose, a rightsholder. The court rejects the merchant's tortious interference claim.

* Techdirt: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

* Politico: Shootout at the digital corral. The entertainment industry spent $91M this year on lobbying. Tech industry spent $15M. Guess who wins that battle?

* Op-eds against SOPA from NYT, LA Times and the Economist.

* EFF: What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could Put at Risk

* Public Knowledge explains why PROTECT-IP isn’t an acceptable compromise to SOPA. Both "solutions" are off-the-charts extreme.

* Wired: Analysis: Internet Blacklist Bill Is Roadmap to ‘the End’ of the Internet.

* WaPo: SOPA opposition goes viral. Partially related: interesting stats about SOPA's lack of popularity.

* DHS/ICE seize another 150 domain names. Who needs SOPA? Reuters’ coverage.

* Hollywood Esq.: How Controversial Antipiracy Laws Could Be Enacted Even Without Congress.

* Nazerali v. Mitchell, 2011 BCSC 1581 (B.C. Sup. Ct. Oct. 19, 2011): A Canadian court ordered Google and other support providers to cut off the domain name of an allegedly defamatory website.

* EFF: Free Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Link. Check out their new resource, www.globalchokepoints.org.

* The RIAA wrote a letter to the editor headlined “RIAA largely succeeds in goal of bringing piracy under control.” Yet, they insist that SOPA is needed?

* Amusingly misguided: The $500,000,000 Cost of Google’s Five Million DMCA Notices. Partially related: Techdirt: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems

Posted by Eric at 08:48 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Trademark | TrackBack

December 05, 2011

Ad Network Avoids Contributory Copyright Infringement for Serving Ads to a Rogue Website--Elsevier v. Chitika

By Eric Goldman with comments from Venkat

Elsevier, Ltd. v. Chitika, Inc., 2011 WL 6008975 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2011). Chitika's brief supporting its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Elsevier's opposition. Chitika's proposed reply brief.

As Venkat recently indicated, while Congress generates massive amounts of hot air discussing SOPA, there's a common law battle quietly brewing with rightsowners seeking to obtain in court the same basic remedies that SOPA would provide statutorily. This judge nixes this rightsowner's request, but this is hardly a win for SOPA opponents or ad networks.

Elsevier publishes textbooks. This lawsuit involves pharmatext.org, a (now-defunct) site that provided links to allegedly infringing copies of Elsevier's books. We'd now characterize pharmatext.org as a possibly rogue website. I previously blogged about this case in January, when the judge issued a dense and troubling ruling that ordered ad networks Chitika and Clicksor to freeze the site's money and stop serving ads to the site. It also ordered the domain name privacy proxy to freeze the domain name and identify the owner. Basically, Elsevier got much of the relief that SOPA now seeks to enact as law.

But hold on a second. The court's January order was based on ex parte proceedings. Chitika subsequently showed up to contest the case, and surprise! The court reaches a different result after adversarial proceedings. Let's hear it for due process!!! YEAH!

[Note: you may recall Chitika separately had an unfortunate legal scrape with the FTC.]

Chitika first argued that Elsevier never proved any direct copyright infringement in the United States because Pharmatext.org's operator, Saggi, was based in India, and the site had no US presence. Elsevier argued that it had test downloads done by US investigators, so there was infringing activity in the US. The court nearly blows a gasket before punting this sticky jurisdictional issue:

While it appears that Chitika may eventually be entitled to judgment on this ground (that is, plaintiffs’ failure to allege any act of direct infringement occurring entirely within the United States), factual issues involving the structure of the Internet and the locus of the infringing activity remain (Where did the copying take place? Where are the third-party websites and servers, from which unauthorized copies of plaintiffs’ books were downloaded?). These issues preclude the granting of the motion on this ground.

For more on the jurisdictional question, see, e.g., the Shropshire case. This locus-of-infringement question is quite interesting, especially as applied to "foreign" rogue websites, but SOPA largely sidesteps all of the doctrinal complexity (and creates its own mess).

Without resolving whose the underlying direct infringer, the court instead considers Chitika's contributory copyright liability. The court concludes that Chitika doesn't have the requisite knowledge of infringement:

Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing that Chitika was familiar with the content of the Pharmatext website, or knew (or had reason to know) that such content was infringing. Thus, plaintiffs fail to support with plausible facts their conclusory allegations that Chitika “must have had knowledge” of the alleged infringement of plaintiffs’ books...and that Chitika “plac[ed] ads on the Pharmatext site because [it] believe[d] that Pharmatext users – in other words, people seeking to obtain pirated copies of copyrighted books – are a target audience for particular advertisers.”

Notice this leaves open what would have happened if Elsevier had sent a takedown/cutoff notice to Chitika. Presumably, such a notice would have conferred the requisite knowledge to Chitika.

Heavily relying on Perfect 10 v. Visa (even though it wasn't binding precedent in Massachusetts), the court also rejects Chitika's material contribution to the infringement. The court says:

while Chitika’s advertising payments might make it easier for Saggi’s infringement to be profitable, Chitika did not create, operate, advertise, or promote the infringing websites, and its advertisements were not the “site” of the infringement.

However, the court hedges at the end, saying it wasn't deciding the issue definitively because Chitika's lack of knowledge resolves this case.

In a footnote, the court explains why Judge Kozinski's dissent in Perfect 10 v. Visa is unhelpful to the plaintiffs:

in contrast to Visa, Chitika did not provide an “essential” service to Saggi that enabled infringement on a “massive scale.” Plaintiffs make no factual allegations that Chitika knew about any infringing activity, nor is there any evidence that Chitika was “intimately and causally involved in a vast number of infringing transactions.”

This is a little garbled (because it references the defendant's knowledge in the consideration of material contribution), but it seems like the court suggests that ad networks may be in a different position than payment service providers because ad networks don't have the same multi-iteration "transactions" with the rogue website.

Notice that this court totally sidestepped (or missed?) the tertiary liability aspect of this case--that Chitika was a support provider to a site that only provided links to allegedly infringing files. To me, it would be entirely appropriate for the court to say that any tertiary player categorically lacks the ability to materially contribute to infringing activity. Otherwise, once we start doing a dragnet for service providers to service providers to infringers, the universe of potential defendants grows to a ridiculous size.

In the end, the court grants Chitika's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Broadly construed, this ruling is a win for ad networks, indicating that they are not automatically liable for contributory copyright infringement simply because allegedly rogue websites participate in their networks. But I'd hardly call this a resounding win. Elsevier didn't send Chitika a cutoff notice, giving the court an easy escape valve on scienter, and the court waffled on the material contribution prong. I would expect this opinion to look very different if Elsevier sent a cutoff notice and Chitika didn't promptly drop Pharmatext. In so, rightsowners like Elsevier probably can get 90%+ of the benefit of SOPA Section 103 simply by sending cutoff notices to ad networks.

Notice also that in the face of a cutoff notice, Chitika would not stand up to defend the alleged rogue website publisher in its network. Chitika alleged that Saggi accrued about $500 in royalty payments over 29 months of service. Assuming Chitika does 50/50 splits with its publishers, Chitika will not expend an ounce of effort to preserve its $17/month revenue stream from Saggi. Thus, Elsevier's cutoff notice would be dispositive--even if Chitika could win a ruling like this (which would be more uncertain after Chitika gets a cutoff notice), it's not worth the fight. So after Elsevier's cutoff notice to Chitika, Chitika instantly tosses Pharmatext overboard like a piece of garbage, due process be damned. SOPA isn't required to get that result.
__

Comments from Venkat:

As Eric points out, Elsevier is trying to hold Chitika liable under a theory of tertiary liability. It's far from clear that Pharmatext is liable to Elsevier for merely linking to infringing downloads. Columbia Records v. Fung is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit, and it should shed some light on how extreme the facts need to be in order to hold a website liable for merely linking to allegedly infringing downloads. (Here's Eric's post on the district court opinion in that case: "Torrent Sites Induce Infringement and Lose DMCA Safe Harbor--Columbia v. Fung." I expect the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the appeal fairly soon.)

The question of infringement that occurs purely off-shore is interesting. As Eric mentions, the court questions whether a site that is totally off-shore can be held liable if there's no predicate act that occurs in the United States. I wonder if this is a legitimate argument for rightsowners as to something in the rules that should be 'fixed'? If Elsevier has no recourse in US courts against Pharmatext, should this automatically undermine any possibility of going after service providers of rogue sites?

Finally, as to the issue of whether Chitika has the requisite knowledge of the underlying infringements for Elsevier to be able to hold it liable, query as to whether any search terms that were used to target could be used to show the requisite knowledge on Chitika's part. The use of search terms as a proxy for intent has come up in the copyright context (e.g., it was used against Limewire as indicative of its intent to lure Napster users) but it would seem less probative in this context.

Posted by Eric at 09:20 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 30, 2011

Fraud Allegations Don't Trump 47 USC 230--Hopkins v. Doe

By Eric Goldman

Hopkins v. Doe #1, 2011 WL 5921446 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2011). The initial complaint. Hopkins' lawsuit-related website.

This lawsuit relates to allegedly defamatory statements that Does made about Hopkins on Topix. As a pro se, Hopkins sued both the Does and Topix. Topix naturally invoked 47 USC 230, and the court easily concludes that it qualifies for the immunity. The court says:

At bottom, Plaintiff seeks to hold Topix liable for simply publishing the defamatory conduct and the consequences which flow from that decision....All of Plaintiff’s state-law claims are preempted by the CDA’s immunity, and Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim.

It appears the plaintiff tried to work around 47 USC 230 by arguing that Topix had made on-site promises to address problematic content and Topix didn't uphold those promises. The court rejects the workaround: "It does not matter that Plaintiff has attempted to skirt this preemption by alleging that Topix fraudulently violated its own policies by not policing its content in a timely fashion." This is unquestionably correct (see, e.g., the uncited Milo v. Martin), but it reinforces that breach of contract workarounds to 47 USC 230 don't necessarily work. For more on the 230/contact interplay, see my recent article on online account terminations.

Hopkins appears to have taken this defeat in stride and is now refocusing his attention on the correct targets. He posted a statement on his website about this ruling:

The Federal Court basically ruled that Topix is completely protected under the Communication Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) which basically allows Internet Providers to act Indecently. So they dismissed Topix, and then remanded the case back to Superior Court in regards to all the John Does, which I will now focus on.

So I tried. I did the best I could. Many people reviewed my work and said that it had as good a chance as anything they could imagine. But inthe end the lesson learned seems to be that until Congress changes hte CDA, then people like Chris Tolles, running companies like Topix, have a free reign to allow Indeecent Communications to flourish and destroy lives. Chalk one up for evil. But we fought. Sometimes that is enough. Now we need to see where this goes.

As for me - I am now hunting certain John Does.

Posted by Eric at 05:05 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 28, 2011

Dangerous Copyright Office Proposal to Undercut the DMCA Online Safe Harbors

By Eric Goldman

In light of SOPA and its capacity to destroy the current online safe harbor scheme, it seems almost quaint to keep worrying about 17 USC 512. However, unless SOPA/PROTECT-IP passes, 512 remains an essential part of the UGC economy, and it's worth fighting to preserve the safe harbor's integrity and all of the social benefits that have flowed from it.

Recently, the Copyright Office floated a proposal that would result in websites completely losing the 512 safe harbors due to administrative technicalities. Specifically, the Copyright Office proposes to force all websites that currently have properly designated an agent for notice to re-register or they will automatically forfeit the safe harbor; then, the Copyright Office proposes to require all websites to take affirmative action to confirm their designation every two years or they will automatically forfeit the safe harbor.

Unquestionably, the proposal's net effect will be that well-meaning legitimate websites will lose their safe harbor protection due to unintentional or garden-variety clerical/administrative errors. Further, there is almost no countervailing benefit to copyright owners or the Copyright Office from the additional administrative requirements.[**] Indeed, the Copyright Office proposal inevitably will increase the litigation costs for both copyright owners and UGC websites as it gives them yet another thing to litigate over--as if 512 opinions weren't long enough already.

[**: Perhaps I've overstated things. In fact, the proposal may offer indirect benefits to both copyright owners and the Copyright Office. First, copyright owners might be happy that more UGC websites become easy targets for their lawsuits. Second, I wonder if the Copyright Office plans to use filing fees to extract more profits from UGC websites, something they didn't expressly say but I have my suspicions].

Working with Corynne McSherry of the EFF and Jason Schultz from UC Berkeley, today we filed comments to the Copyright Office proposal encouraging them to scrap this part of the proposal. Our comments are just 3 pages long, so take a look. The initial comment due date is today; reply comments are due Dec. 27.

Posted by Eric at 09:20 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 23, 2011

eBay Gets 47 USC 230 Dismissal of Products Liability Claim--Inman v. Technicolor

By Eric Goldman

Inman v. Technicolor USA, Inc., 2011 WL 5829024 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2011)

Today, I'm thankful for 47 USC 230. Whenever I think about it, I am still incredulous the law is on the books. Nowadays, Congress' agenda is bulging with proposals from rent-seeking monopolists seeking to break the Internet with the hope of goosing their short-run profits. But 15 years ago, Congress shockingly found a way to foster a new multi-billion dollar UGC industry by restricting lawyers rather than empowering them. And the benefits of the UGC industry make my life better every single day. So thank you to Congress and the foresighted members who recognized that they could do some good with a strong immunity. For more on the history of 47 USC 230 and how it helps today, see the materials we produced from our 15 year anniversary party for 47 USC 230 back in March.

What better way to give thanks for 47 USC 230 than to discuss a case where the 230 immunity got it right. Today's case involves vacuum tubes that contain mercury, some of which third party merchants resold on eBay. Inman, the plainitff, allegedly bought these vacuum tubes and contracted mercury poisoning. He sued nearly two dozen defendants, including eBay, under product liability theories.

eBay defended on several grounds, but I'll focus on 47 USC 230. This is a really easy 230 case; the immunity says eBay can't be liable for what its merchants sell, and the court has little difficulty getting to that point. The court concludes:

the CDA protects eBay from liability for Tube Zone's tortious activity in this case. Inman does not appear to dispute that eBay is an interactive computer service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2), or that Tube Zone is not affiliated with eBay beyond its use of eBay's website. It is true that Inman was injured by tortious conduct. However, whether information disseminated through a website results in a tortious act has no effect on immunity under the CDA. Like the malicious program in Green and the gun sale in Gibson, the alleged sale of vacuum tubes in this case was facilitated by communication for which eBay may not be held liable under the CDA. Therefore, to the extent Inman seeks to hold eBay liable for Tube Zone's tortious conduct, eBay is immune.

A number of prior cases have dealt, expressly or implicitly, with an attempted products liability workaround to 230's immunity. For example, Gibson v. Craigslist dealt with a criminal who bought a gun via Craigslist; and Doe v. MySpace dealt with a "premises liability" type claim. Neither claim made any headway against the 230 immunity. This case also cites some older precedent on the same track, including Green v. AOL, Stoner v. eBay and Gentry v. eBay. However, I think this is the cleanest opinion rejecting a products liability attack on 230's immunity.

The only sour note is that the court dismisses eBay without prejudice, so the plaintiff will get another opportunity to fail before 230 slams the door shut permanently.

This case is a prime example of why 47 USC 230 works so well. If eBay was liable under a product liability theory for every product sold in its marketplace, the potential liability would be enormous--eBay can't inspect the goods its merchants sell, eBay merchants sells millions of unique goods, and who knows which goods will harm victims in what way. eBay could act as the ultimate insurer of all of these harms, but only at extreme cost; and requiring that level of insurance would erect enormous barriers to entry and suppress any possibility of innovation. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other defendants for a claim like this, starting with the manufacturers who put mercury into their vacuum tubes. So making eBay an additional defendant does little to help plaintiffs but would subtract a lot from our economy. Avoiding outcomes like that satisfies me even more than a (faux) turkey dinner. Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted by Eric at 09:48 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 15, 2011

Why I Oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/E-PARASITES Act

By Eric Goldman

[Note: I've been working on this post for about 2 weeks, so my apologies if my comments are duplicative of the intervening discussion about the bill]

The DMCA online safe harbors have worked pretty well over the past 13 years. I don't know that anyone loves the compromise, but everyone seems to have done OK. We've seen an explosion of UGC websites fueled by the safe harbor, and content owners as an industry have done pretty well for themselves financially and have developed a working relationship with most major UGC sites.

The Stop Online Piracy Act, with its ridiculously named subpart the "E-PARASITE Act," doesn't expressly modify 17 USC 512. Nevertheless, it is a full-fledged assault on the safe harbor's scheme. It employs the same basic notice-and-takedown structure of 512, but it applies the cutoff obligations to payment processors and ad networks (thus effectively reversing Perfect 10 v. ccBill and Perfect 10 v. Visa), expands--for the first time--the takedown obligations to trademarks (thus embracing and expanding Gucci v. Frontline), expands the takedown obligations to cover anti-circumvention in addition to the 17 USC 106 rights, expands the reasons why a rightsowner can complain, and does not give the governed intermediaries any business incentive to stand up for user content. On the latter point, because SOPA is designed to cut off the cash, each and every UGC item potentially jeopardizes its entire economic enterprise of a website hosting it. In other words, if the website goes offline because of cash flow problems caused by the cutoff attributable to a single UGC content item, all of the UGC on that website goes dark because of a single content item. Talk about collateral damage.

Thus, among other adverse consequences, if SOPA passed, it effectively repeals 17 USC 512 by shifting most of the action to the notice-and-takedown process in SOPA. In doing so, SOPA radically changes the balance between content owners and UGC websites. Despite the FUD from the content industry and other bill supporters about the supposedly serious problems caused by "rogue" websites and the supposedly fine-grained targeting of this bill, make no mistake--this law mortally threatens the entire UGC community.

There are a lot of other serious problems with the law and I'll discuss a few in a moment, but let me step back for a moment. Some legislative proposals, even if everyone knows they won't pass, are nevertheless useful for sparking healthy conversation among disparate communities. SOPA is not such a law. It doesn't seek to engender productive conversations. Instead, it goes out of its way to pit Silicon Valley v. Hollywood. This fosters unhealthy and antagonistic conversations, and the ongoing battle between the two diverts valuable resources that could be used to enrich both communities. See, e.g., the $100M+ that Google has spent fighting Viacom in the YouTube lawsuit--a huge amount of money that could have been instead invested in new services that benefit consumers, help rightsowners make more money and generally improve society.

Further, this law represents the worst kind of rent-seeking we see from incumbent industries. One approach to drafting legislation is to put so many objectionable concepts into a single bill that the opponents feel like they won if they clean up 50% of the problems, but that still leaves the other 50% of nasties to get through the system. I find it dispiriting that we must spend a lot of resources just to preserve the status quo from this type of industry overreaching. I support democracy for the reasons articulated by Winston Churchill, but I wished I lived in a democracy where attempts at legislative manipulation like SOPA were obviously DOA and led to its proponents suffering appropriately adverse consequences for their overreach.

In addition to the trumping of the 512 notice-and-takedown provisions, other major structural deficiencies of the law include:

* attempting to reinstantiate geographic borders on the Internet. Perhaps rebordering the Internet is inevitable, but it's bad policy for the United States to be cutting off transborder data flows, even for the putatively noble purpose of suppressing copyright infringement. Basically, the law provides a roadmap to foreign governments on how to reinstantiate geographic borders over their Internet connections, and they won't limit their censorship to copyright infringement. Instead, they'll go for the whole enchilada to restrict every type of foreign content the governments object to. (It seems virtually inevitable that we'll do the same in the US too, but that's a separate post). It will be hard for us to criticize those foreign governments' efforts because we taught them how to do it. The retort that we only deemed border reinstantiation worthy for copyright infringement and no other content type will ring hollow. When the Internet balkanizes into the US Internet, which looks nothing like the Egypt Internet, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. I encourage the act's proponents to think very carefully whether such a Balkanized Internet will make them less money in the long run.

* The imposition of cutoff obligations on a wide variety of intermediaries, including Internet access providers and search engines in addition to the payment processors and ad networks I discussed above.

* Terms that don't lend themselves to precise statutory definitions, including "Internet advertising service," "Internet search engine," and "Internet site." All of these definitions are broad, ambiguous and based on assumptions about current technology. They don't make sense today and will look even sillier 10 years from now.

* the complete absence of empirical evidence supporting the need for any changes, or that the proposed changes fix any important problem. The collateral consequences would be unacceptable even if this evidence existed; without it, it's hard to interpret this law as a good faith effort to improve society.

While most of the discussion has been justifiably focused on the cutoff provisions, I also want to call your attention to Section 205 of SOPA. The way I read it, it proposes to build a huge bureaucracy of foreign diplomats whose sole job is to advance the interests of US IP owners in foreign countries. We already have problems with USTRs being IP maximalists, but this section would dramatically expand the number of IP maximalists in the US diplomatic corps. I'm not sure I have a good handle on all of the implications, but it seems like (1) we'll have more opportunities for the revolving door from IP owners to government and back, (2) this will further inculcate the agenda of legacy/incumbent IP industries into our government policy, and (3) we will have more boots on the ground to push the US IP maximalist agenda on other countries as part of our doctrinal imperialism.

There has been a lot of commentary about the bills. Some links worth exploring:

EFF Coverage

SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet (an excellent single-stop resource to begin your research)

Proposed Copyright Bill Threatens Whistleblowing and Human Rights

Techdirt

[I know you're already reading Techdirt, but no one is doing a better job of chronicling the day-to-day SOPA developments than Mike Masnick.]

E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'

MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized [a must-read article of how content owners who should know better nevertheless mistakenly accuse legitimate businesses of infringing activity and, using the power of law enforcement, shut down legitimate businesses and cost Americans jobs]

Go Daddy Supports E-PARASITE Legislation Even Though Its Own Site Is Dedicated To Theft Of Property Under Terms Of The Bill

Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't

Others

Larry Downes, News.com, SOPA: Hollywood's latest effort to turn back time

Future of Music Coalition, Coming Clean on SOPA

Rebecca MacKinnon, New York Times, Stop the Great Firewall of America

Public Knowledge, SOPA and Section 1201: A Frightening Combination

James Temple, San Francisco Chronicle, Stop Online Piracy Act would stop online innovation

What You Can Do

If your member of Congress is supporting the law, remember that fact come election time. Before then, some things you can do today:

Contact your legislator

Sign the petition at Whitehouse.gov

Sign the petition at Avaaz

If you qualify, sign the Educators' Letter to Congress

Posted by Eric at 08:16 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Trademark | TrackBack

November 07, 2011

Good News/Bad News About the Number of Blogs Eligible for the 17 USC 512 Safe Harbor

By Eric Goldman

My 2006 article about blog law included the following passage (footnotes omitted):

few blogs satisfy the numerous technical prerequisites for § 512 eligibility, such as registering their websites with the U.S. Copyright Office. To assess this, on April 18, 2006, I searched the Copyright Office’s database of § 512 registrations and found only ten registrations containing the word “blog.”

In preparing comments on the Copyright Office's proposed amendments to the 512 designation of agent requirements, I decided to redo this pseudo-empirical study. On November 3, I went to the Copyright Office's database of registrations and searched for the character string "blog" in the name of the registered names/websites. I came up with over 200 hits. At the bottom of the post, I lay out the numerical details.

[Procedural note: I know this methodology is a hack. First, the Copyright Office has a lag of weeks/months between filing and publication. Second, many blogs don't have the word "blog" in their title for registration purposes but may be covered nonetheless. Third, a single entity might be counted multiple times in my count; for example, Weblogs, Inc. counted as at least 3 hits. Fourth, I'm not even sure what constitutes a "blog" any more. I'm sure there are many other objections. The count isn't super-precise. It's more of a directional indicator.]

Thus, the good news is that my 2011 census produced more than 20x the number of hits I got five years ago. Clearly the word has spread in the blogging community of the value of filing for 512 protection. But, the bad news is that even if 200+ blogs are covered by the agent designation--and therefore have satisfied one of the formalities prerequisites for a 512(c) safe harbor--it's a tiny fraction of the blogs that might ultimately want the 512 safe harbor because, for example, they allow user comments. Indeed, Righthaven repeatedly sued defendants over user-uploaded articles/comments to blogs and websites that hadn't made the requisite filing and therefore couldn't claim the safe harbor at all. So while it's heartening to see the growth in blogs eligible for 512 coverage, the overall number of covered blogs remains disconcertingly low.

FWIW, as a personal note, this blog isn't covered by a 512 designation of agent. I'm obviously aware of the statute, but comments have been off since 2006. The only posts that might be covered by my 512 filing are those of my co-bloggers, such as Venkat, and I've decided to take the risk that they will post infringing material and that a 512 designation would have been available in the co-blogger situation.
_____

The number of times the character string "blog" appeared per letter in the Copyright Office database: A - 2 // B - 50 // C - 12 // D - 6 // E - 1 // F - 7 // G - 6 // H - 16 // I - 6 // J - 1 // K - 6 // L - 6 // M - 13 // N - 9 // O - 1 // P - 10 // Q - 0 // R - 4 // S - 13 // T - 9 // U - 3 // V - 1 // W - 23 // X - 0 // Y - 1 // Z - 3 // Other - 0. Total = 209.

Posted by Eric at 08:54 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 06, 2011

October 2011 Quick Links

By Eric Goldman

Copyright

* MUST READ from Techdirt: MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized. On the topic of errors in determining copyright infringement, the incident a powerful reminder both that even those "in the know" overclaim copyright infringement, and that the targets of such overclaiming can suffer catastrophic losses. That makes the incident an important reminder of the value of procedural safeguards in the copyright setting.

* An amended Capitol v MP3Tunes opinion explains why 17 USC 512 applies to state copyright claims (see pages 14-17). Prior blog coverage.

* Megaupload settles with Perfect 10, and the judge vacated her opinion. Prior blog coverage.

* Permanent injunction issued against Zediva. Prior blog coverage.

* Supplemental briefing requested in Viacom v. YouTube:

The parties are hereby ordered to submit letter briefs, not exceeding ten pages doublespaced, on the following questions: (1) whether and how the red-flag knowledge provision would apply under the Defendants’ “specific” knowledge construction of § 512(c)(1)(A); and (2) whether YouTube’s “syndication” of videos to third parties falls outside the scope of safe harbor protection for activities that occur “by reason of . . . storage at the direction of a user” under § 512(c)(1).

Mark Lemley on Viacom v. YouTube.

* Mick Haig Productions, e.K. v. Does, 2011 WL 5104095 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2011). In a mass copyright lawsuit, the plaintiff's lawyer issues subpoenas without authorization to identify the defendants and gets sanctioned $10k for it.

* Righthaven LLC v. Newman, 2011 WL 4762322 (D. Nev. 2011):

the restated SAAs are not a simple attempt to clarify or supplement the facts pleaded in the complaint with additional facts that were present at the time of filing. Rather, the restated SAAs present a new set of facts with respect to the alleged copyright ownership, which is impermissible because Righthaven may not amend the defects in the jurisdictional facts themselves. See Newman–Green, 490 U.S. at 830. Next, the restated SAAs' terms substantially contradict the original SAA. Again, defects of allegations may be amended, but not defects in the facts themselves.

* Righthaven LLC v. Inform Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 4904431(D. Nev. Oct 14, 2011). Upholding personal jurisdiction in Nevada but issuing an order to show cause why the suit shouldn't be dismissed for lack of standing.

* Righthaven v. Newsblaze (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2011). Another Nevada judge, this time Judge Jones, dismisses a Righthaven case for lack of standing.

* Sam Francis Foundation v eBay complaint: Class action suit against eBay under CA's "resale royalty" statute.

* Google got a good copyright win in a German case over its image search service.

* Wired: U.S. Copyright Czar Cozied Up to Content Industry, E-Mails Show

Search Engines

* Google implements SSL on its search results pages and knocks out search terms from the referrer URL. This may sound like a privacy win, but it also means that Google will increase the gap between its database and the databases of indexed websites. So this is a backdoor way for Google to hoard data for itself...and perhaps increase incentives for advertisers to pay. More on this point from Danny Sullivan: "if Google thinks this needs to be done for privacy reasons, then it needs to block referrers for everyone and not still allow them to work for advertisers. That move is one of the most disturbing, hypocritical things I’ve ever seen Google do."

* Google Buzz is dead, but Google has a 20 year hangover with the FTC, which approved the settlement. Prior blog post. Francoise Gilbert offers some lessons.

* Search Engine Land: Organic Click-Thru Rates Tumbling; Only 52% Click On Page One, Study Suggests

* News.com: Google's whimsical Easter eggs.

Content Regulation

* Darm v. Craig, the Oregon Twitter libel lawsuit, settled.

* Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language Services Associates, LLC, 2011 WL 5024281(N.D. Cal. Oct 13, 2011). Complicated dispute between two competitors. Many claims based on one competitor's blog post were stricken under CA's anti-SLAPP law. Rebecca’s coverage.

* Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47 (Can Sup Ct): Linking to defamatory content on 3rd party site isn't "publication" of linked content.

* Hollywood Reporter: Misappropriation of personality claim in Hurt Locker case gets anti-SLAPPed.

Miscellaneous

* Ninth Circuit will rehear the Nosal case en banc. Prior blog post. Tom O’Toole’s reset.

* Zing Brothers LLC v. Bevstar LLC (D. Utah Oct. 14, 2011: “This specific inclusion of Utah in the drop down list of states, and the website statements that orders are solicited anywhere "inside the USA" is sufficient to establish that this site is "something more" than a non-targeted transaction site.”

* Ferris & Salter P.C. v. Thomson Reuters Corp. (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2011): “There is no basis under Michigan law or, for that matter, in the vast majority of those states whose courts have considered the issue, to deem computer consultants and service providers professionals…. Thus, the Court concludes that—under Minnesota or Michigan law—no professional negligence action will lie against computer engineers and technicians.”

* From the Chronicle of Higher Ed: What Wikipedia Deletes, and Why.

* A new article tries to answer the question, "Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?" My Wikipedia article touched on this issue.

* Actors' unions ask IMDb not to publish the age of actors. NY Times coverage.

* Tom O’Toole: ICANN's .xxx sunrise period was a success--for ICANN.

* A behind-the-scenes look at the creation of the Paris Hilton brand:

* I was on TWiL 134 with Denise Howell, Evan Brown and Ernie Svenson. Listen in.

Posted by Eric at 03:35 PM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Search Engines | TrackBack

November 03, 2011

Ninth Circuit Affirms Google's Section 230 Win Over a Negative Business Review--Black v. Google

By Eric Goldman

Black v. Google, Inc., 2011 WL 5188426 (9th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). The complaint. The district court ruling.

The Blacks sued Google over a negative third party review of their business published in an unspecified Google property. This lawsuit was obviously preempted by 47 USC 230 from the get-go, so I easily fit my prediction of the case's outcome into a tweet. In August 2010, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on Section 230 grounds in an efficient opinion.

The Ninth Circuit didn't find this case any more challenging than the district court did. In a brief unpublished memo opinion, the court upheld the district court's ruling. The main substantive sentence of the Ninth Circuit's opinion:

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as precluded by section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) because plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Google for content created by a third party. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Section 230 of the CDA immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties . . . .”); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Through [section 230 of the CDA], Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party.”).

Posted by Eric at 08:52 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

November 02, 2011

Yahoo Partially Defeats Lawsuit Over Wrongful Account Termination--Buza v. Yahoo

By Eric Goldman

Buza v. Yahoo, Inc., 2011 WL 5041174 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011). The complaint.

Buza claims Yahoo terminated two GeoCities accounts related to his advocacy efforts. Buza is proceeding pro se, which is typical for user lawsuits over wrongful account termination. He sued Yahoo in state court. Yahoo tried to remove to federal court. In this ruling, Judge Seeborg dismisses the federal claims and sends the others back to state court. I'm sure Yahoo wished Judge Seeborg had cleaned out the case entirely, but I bet Yahoo will get there soon enough.

Buza claimed that Yahoo violated his First Amendment rights. As I explain in my article on wrongful account termination, plaintiffs often invoke the Constitution to get around any statutory immunities, but Constitutional claims routinely go nowhere. It's 100% clear that privately owned online service providers like Yahoo aren't state actors and therefore aren't restricted by the Constitution. The court says:

Buza's response that Yahoo!'s services should be seen as a "public forum" in which the guarantees of the First Amendment apply is not tenable under federal law. As a private actor, Yahoo! has every right to control the content of material on its servers, and appearing on websites that it hosts.

Similar recent cases in this vein include Young v. Facebook, Estavillo v. Sony and Jayne v. Google Founders.

Buza also brought an ECPA/SCA (18 USC 2701) claim for unlawful access to stored communications. The court dismisses because the restrictions don't apply to the service provider's access of those communications.

Having disposed of the federal claims, Judge Seeborg sends the case back to state court to deal with the remaining claims, which include a violation of California's state constitution, "intellectual property," trespass to chattels and breach of contract. The judge expresses some skepticism about some of these claims, but having decided he could quickly clean his docket of the case, he doesn't go any further than necessary to send the case back to state court.

My understanding is that Yahoo didn't raise a 47 USC 230(c)(2) defense, the federal immunity for service providers' filtering decisions. I explore this point in detail in ">my recent 230(c)(2) article. 230(c)(2) can't trump federal constitutional claims, but it should (?) trump state constitutional claims. 230(c)(2) doesn't apply to IP claims per a statutory exclusion, but the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v. ccBill said that 230 trumps state IP claims (the judge says no federal IPs are at issue). The immunity likely trumps the trespass to chattels claim, although I don't recall seeing that issue tested before. And I explain in my article, 230(c)(2) could very well trump the contract breach claim. (This judge could have also disposed of the contract claim based on express terms giving Yahoo the power to pull the plug on websites, but the state court judge will have do that).

Because the immunity is a federal statute, it would have been appropriate for the federal court to interpret its application to the state claims before remanding. This discussion suggests that had the immunity been raised, Judge Seeborg might have completely ended the case on 230(c)(2) grounds without sending anything back to state court.

Posted by Eric at 09:33 AM | Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Privacy/Security , Trespass to Chattels | TrackBack

October 26, 2011

Yelp Gets Complete Win in Advertiser "Extortion" Case--Levitt v. Yelp

By Eric Goldman

Levitt v. Yelp Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124082 (N.D Cal. Oct. 26, 2011)

A group of advertisers sued Yelp for allegedly extorting them to buy ads from Yelp with the implied/express threat that Yelp would degrade their ranking in Yelp's database if they didn't. In a previous ruling, Judge Patel dismissed the second amended complaint, but her opinion exhibited her characteristic quirkiness.

The case got reassigned to Judge Chen, who was presented with a motion to dismiss a third amended complaint. Deviating in part from Judge Patel's analysis, he reaches the same conclusionthat the complaint should be dismissed--but this time he does so with prejudice, sending the case to the Ninth Circuit (likely) or its grave.

The plaintiffs asserted that Yelp itself wrote negative reviews about the advertisers. In support of this assertion, the plaintiffs claimed that Yelp employees write some reviews, Yelp pays authors for reviews and some reviews don't match the advertisers' customer records. The court says those allegations aren't enough to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because they do "not raise more than a mere possibility that Yelp has authored or manipulated content related to Plaintiffs in furtherance of an attempt to 'extort' advertising revenues." The plaintiffs' arguments were too inferential, and other stories plausibly fit the alleged facts.

The plaintiffs' claims that Yelp reorders reviews is preempted by 47 USC 230(c)(1):

Plaintiffs’ allegations of extortion based on Yelp’s alleged manipulation of their review pages – by removing certain reviews and publishing others or changing their order of appearance – falls within the conduct immunized by § 230(c)(1).

Once again, a defense win cites to Roommates.com.

To get around 230, the plaintiffs argued that Yelp assembled a star rating, and the star rating was its own expression, not its users. The court notes this argument was rejected a decade ago in Gentry v. eBay. To get around Gentry, the plaintiffs argued that Yelp improperly monkeyed with reviews to shape the star rating with bad intent (to "extort"/pull cash out of advertisers' pockets).

Judge Chen responds that "§ 230(c)(1) contains no explicit exception for impermissible editorial motive." He contrasts 230(c)(2)'s "good faith" requirement, saying that the absence of a parallel "good faith" requirement in 230(c)(2) means editorial intent is irrelevant to 230(c)(1). [For more on the "good faith" requirement in Section 230(c)(2), see my article on account termination and 230(c)(2).] On this point, he diverged from Judge Patel's analysis, but unlike her, he actually cites a Ripoff Report victory in support of his conclusion. (Still no cite to the Reit v. Yelp ruling).

Making the point that 230(c)(1) does not permit an inquiry into the defendant's motivation, Judge Chen continues:

traditional editorial functions often include subjective judgments informed by political and financial considerations....Determining what motives are permissible and what are not could prove problematic. Indeed, from a policy perspective, permitting litigation and scrutiny motive could result in the “death by ten thousand duck-bites” against which the Ninth Circuit cautioned in interpreting § 230(c)(1)....As illustrated by the case at bar, finding a bad faith exception to immunity under § 230(c)(1) could force Yelp to defend its editorial decisions in the future on a case by case basis and reveal how it decides what to publish and what not to publish. Such exposure could lead Yelp to resist filtering out false/unreliable reviews (as someone could claim an improper motive for its decision), or to immediately remove all negative reviews about which businesses complained (as failure to do so could expose Yelp to a business’s claim that Yelp was strong-arming the business for advertising money).

Yes! That's exactly right, and kudos for the judge for seeing the connection. The beauty of 230(c)(1) is its simplicity. It ends lawsuits cold on a 12(b)(6), and doesn't open the door for a myriad of messy, expensive and time-consuming factual considerations. Having that airtight immunity means websites can make tough editorial decisions without worrying what kind of story those decisions will ultimately tell in court. Contrast the litigation inquiries in 512(c) and contributory/vicarious copyright infringement, where every service provider choice is grist for the plaintiffs, and that pressure leads service providers to follow the rule "if in doubt, take it down."

The judge adds that a lawsuit based on Yelp's marketing representations might not be covered by 230(c)(1). I discuss this issue more in my 230(c)(2) paper. I disagree with the judge's statement. As I explain in my paper, 230(c)(1) can preempt marketing-based claims; plus see cases like Milo v. Martin. Fortunately, it's inconsequential to this lawsuit as the plaintiffs dropped their false advertising claims. Unfortunately, I expect plaintiffs to seize this language (along with similar statements in other rulings) and do lots of research to find shreds of marketing and support material published by a service provider that could be used to support a false advertising claim that's fundamentally based on user-generated content. (But cf. the Woods v. Google ruling, where Judge Fogel put his foot down on that nonsense).

This ruling makes clear that Yelp can manage its database of user reviews however it wants. This is as it should be. However, it doesn't mean that we as consumers will find Yelp trustworthy. Section 230(c)(1) simply means that Yelp has to earn and keep our trust as readers/consumers, which remains an important and ongoing challenge.

UPDATE: Rebecca's comments.

Posted by Eric at 02:08 PM | Derivative Liability , Marketing | TrackBack

October 12, 2011

Google Defeats Class Certification in Keyword Ad Lawsuit--FPX v. Google

By Eric Goldman

FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2011 WL 4783376 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2011)

Google obtained a major victory in one of the most serious pending lawsuits against it challenging its AdWords keyword advertising program. Putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas--which many folks view as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction for patent cases--by some lawyers/litigants with ties to the patent NPE community. (The FPX case was consolidated for discovery purposes with parallel and virtually identical cases by John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC and the Rodney Hamilton Trust; I believe this ruling effectively applies to all three). On the surface, this looked like a major showdown over Google's practices in a potentially hostile venue with a venal adversary.

However, so far the case is working out fine for Google. Judge Ward (adopting Magistrate Judge Everingham's report verbatim) refused to certify the class, meaning that each advertiser will have to proceed against Google individually--or give up. Without the potential payoffs from a class adjudication, it's possible/probable that the plaintiffs' lawyers will lose interest in the case; NPE litigation may be more lucrative than continuing to pursue Google on an advertiser-by-advertiser basis. Even if the plaintiffs decide to push ahead with individual cases, Google's consequences of an adverse ruling go down substantially.

The ruling isn't all that surprising or groundbreaking. As I wrote in my initial blog post on the case in 2009, "the judge is very unlikely to certify the class." The opinion walks through various reasons why trademark lawsuits don't lend themselves to class adjudication, including:

* initial interest confusion must be examined with respect to each trademark. The court notes the different, and trademark-specific, analyses in GEICO v. Google and the Network Automation case. "Thus, Plaintiffs' common contention (i.e., that Google's policy of selling trademarks as keywords leads to initial interest confusion) is not capable of classwide resolution and, as such, does not meet Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement."

* each trademark's strength has to be individually evaluated. See the Vulcan Golf v. Google ruling.

* any affirmative defenses have to be evaluated on a trademark-by-trademark basis (another cite to Vulcan Golf).

* the request for equitable disgorgement was problematic under the applicable FRCP.

[If you're looking for a good paper topic, here's one: when (if ever) are trademark lawsuits appropriate for class adjudication, and how and why does this differ from other false advertising lawsuits?]

A procedural note: since this ruling, the case was reassigned from Judge Ward to Judge Folsom. This appears to be triggered by Judge Ward's October 1 retirement. It's not clear to me if this reassignment helps or hurts one litigant compared to the other.

As a practical matter, the defeat of class certification here leaves the Rosetta Stone v. Google case as the most serious trademark challenge to AdWords still remaining. Should Google get a good ruling in that appeal, it is probable that Google will successfully run the table on the remaining lawsuits and obtain a de facto clean bill of health for its AdWords program.

The roster of pending AdWords cases (I most recently double-checked the status of pending cases on October 12, 2011):

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google and the related cases John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and Rodney A. Hamilton Living Trust v. Google, plus the now-dead Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google 1.0 (voluntarily dismissed), succeeded by Jurin v. Google 2.0
* Rosetta Stone v. Google [on appeal]
* Flowbee v. Google
* Parts Geek v. US Auto Parts
* Dazzlesmile v. Epic
* Pathak v. ICG
* Groupion v. Groupon

Posted by Eric at 12:54 PM | Derivative Liability , Search Engines , Trademark | TrackBack

October 03, 2011

New Essay on 47 USC 230(c)(2)

By Eric Goldman

I have posted a new essay, Online User Account Termination and 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(2), to SSRN. I wrote this essay as a contribution to a virtual world symposium at UC Irvine, and it will be published in the UC Irvine Law Review.

The essay generally argues that 47 USC 230(c)(2) permits online providers, including virtual world operators, to terminate user accounts without liability. Academic commentators frequently ignore or fail to consider Section 230(c)(2)'s immunity when discussing user account terminations, so the essay tries to elevate Section 230(c)(2)'s profile in the discussions, especially for the virtual world community. To me, Section 230(c)(2)'s applicability to account terminations is clear, but the story is complicated and perhaps not free from controversy. In addition to explaining the nuts-and-bolts, I offer a brief theoretical defense of the immunity.

I believe this essay is the first law review article exclusively on 47 USC 230(c)(2), the overlooked and undertheorized sibling of Section 230(c)(1). (FWIW, I have another, much larger article in process on Section 230(c)(1) that I hope to complete next semester.) If I've missed a 230(c)(2)-specific article, please please please let me know. For that reason alone, I'm quite excited about this essay.

I'm also excited about this essay because it culminates a topic I've been contemplating since I began blogging--the implications of virtual world proprietors' rights to terminate for convenience. See, e.g., this post--one of my first on the blog--from 6 1/2 years ago. After all these years, I'm glad to finally organize my thoughts more completely.

The essay is in draft form, so I would gratefully welcome your comments.
________

The abstract:

An online provider’s termination of a user’s online account can be a major-and potentially even life-changing-event for the user. Account termination exiles the user from a virtual place the user wanted to be; termination disrupts any social network relationship ties in that venue, and prevents the user from sending or receiving messages there; and the user loses any virtual assets in the account, which could be anything from archived emails to accumulated game assets. The effects of account termination are especially acute in virtual worlds, where dedicated users may be spending a majority of their waking hours or have aggregated substantial in-game wealth. However, the problem arises in all online environments (including email, social networking and web hosting) where account termination disrupts investments made by users.

Because of the potentially significant consequences from online user account termination, user-rights advocates, especially in the virtual world context, have sought legal restrictions on online providers’ discretion to terminate users. However, these efforts are largely misdirected because of 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(2) (“Section 230(c)(2)”), a federal statutory immunity. This essay, written in conjunction with an April 2011 symposium at UC Irvine entitled "Governing the Magic Circle: Regulation of Virtual Worlds," explains Section 230(c)(2)’s role in immunizing online providers’ decisions to terminate user accounts. It also explains why this immunity is sound policy.

Posted by Eric at 09:10 AM | Derivative Liability , Internet History , Licensing/Contracts , Virtual Worlds | TrackBack

September 26, 2011

Stock Trading Message Board Protected by 47 USC 230--Deer Consumer Products v. Little

By Eric Goldman

Deer Consumer Products v. Little, Index No. 650823/11 (NY Sup. Ct. Aug. 31, 2011)

SeekingAlpha is a message board for stock traders. This is their second appearance on the blog. In Desai v. Clark, a SeekingAlpha author brought a defamation suit against the author of disparaging comments to his post. That lawsuit ended quickly with a motion to dismiss.

This case involves several third party-authored reports on SeekingAlpha discussing the business practices of Deer Consumer Products, a Chinese manufacturer of small home appliances. Deer sued both an author and SeekingAlpha, alleging defamation. Because the claims relate to third party-authored posts, SeekingAlpha is obviously not liable under 47 USC 230.

Deer mounted a lackluster attempt to work around 230's immunity. The court discussed allegations that SeekingAlpha pre-reviews and "handpicks" third party posts for publication, but those facts push towards the immunity, not away from it. The court continues that "plaintiff failed to submit any evidence or allegation indicating that SAL is anything other than a publisher of third party content on its website. Plaintiff's own submissions show that SAL selects, edits, and organizes the articles written by others....There is simply no allegation that SAL created or developed the alleged defamatory statements and ideas contained in the defamatory report." Further, the court says there's no need for discovery to figure out the relationships between SeekingAlpha and its authors, and thus the court dismisses without leave to amend.

Other New York state court rulings that have interpreted 47 USC 230 broadly include Shiamili v. Real Estate Group, Reit v. Yelp and Finkel v. Facebook.

Posted by Eric at 08:32 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 25, 2011

Failure to Delete Third Party Comments Supports a Malice Finding in Defamation Case--Tanner v. Ebbole

By Eric Goldman

Tanner v. Ebbole, 2011 WL 4425540 (Ala. Civ. App. Ct. Sept. 23, 2011)

Competitive animosity can be found in every industry, but it sometimes amazes me just how sharp it can. Today's case involves competing tattoo shops located across the street from each other in Mobile, Alabama. The newcomer apparently wanted to knock off Ebbole, the incumbent, and therefore allegedly went on a campaign to smear its rival, including orally telling folks that the rival had communicable diseases. Also, Tanner, a business associate of the newcomer (an employee? an independent contractor? the case doesn't resolve this characterization), allegedly made a MySpace posting questioning her skills. Ebbole sued for slander, libel and invasion of privacy. She alleged that the defendants' campaign had hurt her bottom line, causing her income to drop from no less than $28k/year to $20k that year. (The defendants' economics don't look much better--the company claims a net worth of -$28k, its proprietor claims a net worth of $12k, and Tanner claims a net worth of -$3k. Aren't they effectively judgment-proof???) It's clear the tattoo business isn't the most lucrative.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but this is where things get especially weird. The jury awarded zero compensatory damages plus $200k in punitive damages against the company, $100k in punitive damages against the company's owner and $10k in punitive damages against Tanner, the business associate. This is a rare jury finding of defamation. However, the award of punitive damages when there are zero compensatory damages poses some doctrinal problems, so the court ordered the jury to try again. Not surprisingly (especially given the updated detailed jury instructions on how to award nominal compensatory damages), the jury came back with $1 compensatory damages against each of the three defendants plus the same punitive damages awards.

Also odd was the court's discussion of malice. The court ruled the plaintiff was a public figure, so the plaintiff had to show defendants' malice to support the defamation claim. I am especially interested in its application to Tanner's MySpace posting. The court quotes the posting and it looks pretty timid:

You have taken what I love and sh-t all over it ... allegedly.

Current mood: disgusted

Category: blogging

I came across this video during my recent health inspection of all [things]. I was certified to do microdermal anchoring in October of 2008.... [Ebbole's method] is disrespectful to what I do and what I love ... allegedly. I ask you, people of the interweb ... what should I do about it?

FYI: [Ebbole's method] is NOT the method I use or would suggest to be used for any implant procedure.

I'm failing to see anything defamatory in this statement at all. Tanner says that Ebbole's method is "disrespectful" and isn't the method Tanner would use or recommend. The former seems like a straight-up opinion, and the latter appears to be a truthful statement of Tanner's beliefs. What am I missing? The appeals court rejected Tanner's arguments claiming protection as opinion because she didn't provide any citations...hmmm. It's unclear who posted the referenced video, but even if Tanner posted it, if the video truthfully depicts Ebbole at work then I'm not sure what's the problem with it either.

In response to Tanner's posting, some users made negative comments. For example, one comment said "I'll be happy to kill [Ebbole]." A terrible comment, but not defamatory. However, other comments are arguably defamatory, such allegations that Ebbole didn't properly do age authentication and had communicable diseases.

However, due to 47 USC 230, none of the user comments should be attributed back to Tanner, and unless Tanner made the video, any defamatory material in the video shouldn't be attributed back either (if all she did was embed a third party video). Sadly, 47 USC 230 isn't mentioned at all in the opinion, and I fear it was never raised in the lawsuit at all.

On the question of Tanner's malice, the court continues:

The trial court was apparently of the view that malice could be inferred from Tanner's failure, after receiving a demand letter from Ebbole's counsel, to retract her statements or to delete the third-party comments that were posted on her Web page. That view has some support.

Ugh. Inferring malice from a site operator's failure to remove third party comments should be preempted by 47 USC 230 because it treats the operator as a publisher/speaker of those comments. It's disappointing the opinion doesn't acknowledge the issue at all.

The court does remand the case back to the trial court to reconsider the defendants' remittitur requests and whether the punitive damage awards are excessive in light of the nominal compensatory damages.

Blog coverage of other tats-related legal issues:

* Copyright and Tattoos: Hangover II Injunction Denied, But the Copyright Owner Got Some Good News Too--Whitmill v. Warner Bros. (Guest Blog Post)
* Tattoo Advertising/Human Billboards
* Copyright in Tattoos

Plus check out my 2005 contracts exam.

Posted by Eric at 10:16 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 14, 2011

Request for Help: Doctor v. Patient Lawsuits Over Online Reviews

By Eric Goldman

I'm doing some research, and I'm hoping you can help. I'm trying to comprehensively catalog doctor vs. patient lawsuits over online reviews of the doctor. I'm equally interested in suits by other health care professionals; I've noticed dentists are surprisingly litigious. I've included lawsuits against intermediate publishers where the underlying litigation involves a patient review. I've also included suits where the review author was a family member of the patient, but I'm excluding other posts by non-patients.

Here's the list I've developed so far:

* Nevyas v. Morgan, 309 F. Supp. 2d 673 (E.D. Pa. 2004)
* Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)
* Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2006)
* Gilbert v. Sykes, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 752 (Cal. App. Ct. 2007)
* Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. v. Hennessey, 629 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2008)
* Biegel v. Norberg, San Francisco Superior Ct. case # CGC-08-472522 (filed Feb. 25, 2008)
* Kim v. IAC/InterActive Corp., 2008 WL 3906427 (Cal. App. Ct. 2008)
* Reit v. Yelp, Inc., 29 Misc.3d 713 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)
* Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354 (Cal. App. Ct. 2010)
* Rahbar v. Batoon, San Francisco Superior Ct., case # CGC-09-492145 (filed Sept. 2, 2009) and case # CGC-10-502884 (filed August 20, 2010)
* McKee v. Laurion Case # 69-DU-CV-10-1706 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr. 28, 2011)
* Lynch v. Christie, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 3920154 (D. Me. Sept. 7, 2011)
* Pensler v. Hostetler, 10 CH 35876 (filed 8/19/10); Pensler v. Cuevas, 10 CH 35238 (filed 8/16/10); and Pensler v. Bender, 09 CH 18628 (filed 6/10/09) (all in Cook County Court)
* Henry v. Does 1-100, CIV095020; plus the apparently related Henry v. Carson, CIV1002670, and Henry v. Tamara M., CIV1003042 (all in Marin Superior Court)

Three other cases that are close but factually distinguishable:

* Townson v. Liming, 2010 WL 2767984 (Tex. App. Ct. 2010)
* Lifestyle Lift Holding Co. Inc. v. Prendiville, 768 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Mich. 2011)
* Darm v. Craig, Case 1107-08823, Oregon Circuit Court

Please email me if you have any suggestions of other cases I should check out.

Posted by Eric at 08:38 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

September 13, 2011

Ninth Circuit Upholds Web Host's Liability for Counterfeiting Retailers--Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc

By Eric Goldman

Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., No. 10-15909 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2011). Prior blog posts:
* Another Bad Ruling in Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc
* Making Sense of the $32M Contributory Trademark Infringement Judgment Against a Web Host
* Web Host Faces Potential Contributory Trademark Liability

This cases involves a US web host, Akanoc, that hosted Chinese retailers selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods. The web host apparently ignored numerous takedown notices from Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton sued for contributory copyright and trademark infringement, and the result has been a string of troubling rulings. For a sample of those, consider the trial court's rulings that individuals directly infringe copyrights when browsing a photo of a counterfeit good, and a 512 agent for service of notice could be personally liable for any infringements. Ugh. The coup de grace was a massive $32+M jury verdict against the defendants for willful infringement.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court issued a characteristic "omnibus" opinion that resolves lots of contentions in relatively short order. Opinions like this rarely become major precedents, which is fine by me given the results. Overall, the court rejects all of the defendants' arguments except one, but that one saves the defense over $10M.

Some of the more interesting points:

* MSG leased equipment to Akanoc. The jury held MSG liable, but the trial court reversed that. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that MSG wasn't liable for the retailer counterfeiting because "Louis Vuitton presented no evidence that MSG had reasonable means to withdraw services to the direct infringers."

* the defendants argued that its customers' websites were the "means" of trademark infringement, not the hosting services to them. The court rejected the argument as irrelevant:

websites are not ethereal; while they exist, virtually, in cyberspace, they would not exist at all without physical roots in servers and internet services....Appellants had control over the services and servers provided to the websites. Stated another way, Appellants had direct control over the “master switch” that kept the websites online and available.

This seems to resolve one of the open issues from the Ninth Circuit's 1999 Lockheed v. NSI case, which is the circuit's benchmark opinion on contributory trademark infringement online. That case said NSI as a domain name registrar wasn't responsible for an infringing domain name, but it implied that vendors closer to the infringement--such as web hosts--could be. This ruling confirms our assumption that web hosts have more affirmative obligations to intervene against trademark infringement than domain name registrars do.

* "providing direct infringers with server space" qualifies as a material contribution for contributory copyright infringement.

* the court touched on the required scienter for both contributory trademark and copyright infringement, but this discussion goes nowhere given that the jury found willful infringement.

Even though the defendants did not prevail on its doctrinal arguments, the appeal was partially successful because the court reduced the damages award over $10M (the jury had awarded $32+M against three defendants; the judge post-ruling had dismissed MSG, which cut the award to about $21M; this panel reduces it further to $10.8M). The trial court judge's jury instructions allowed the jury to cumulate awards against each defendant for the same infringements, rather than forcing them to make a single award joint-and-several. The appeals court fixed that perplexing error.

Even so, the lesson remains that any web host that fails to promptly honor takedown notices--copyright or trademark--does so at extreme peril. We don't have an express notice-and-takedown scheme for trademarks, but we've gotten there on a de facto basis.

Posted by Eric at 09:05 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Trademark | TrackBack

September 01, 2011

Google Gets a Good Win in the MyTriggers Lawsuit

By Eric Goldman

BFS Finance v. My Triggers Co., 09CV-14836 (Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Aug. 31, 2011)

This lawsuit started all so innocently. It was just a routine collections matter against MyTriggers, an AdWords advertiser, for a few hundred thousand dollars. Unexpectedly, Google found itself pinned down in a dangerous venue (Ohio state court) against lawyers with impressive resumes and apparently bottomless legal budgets raising issues that are central to Google's business. My original blog post on MyTriggers' counterclaims.

For the moment, Google is having the last laugh. Although it cost them lots of money in discovery and managerial focus, yesterday Google got a thoroughly satisfying win on its motion to dismiss MyTriggers' counterclaims. I'm confident the plaintiff won't let this ruling stand as the final word, but it's clear MyTriggers has gotten zero traction in court. Combined with the ignominious dismissal of TradeComet's similar lawsuit against Google on jurisdictional grounds (being handled by some of the same plaintiff's lawyers), I'm even more confident now that both the TradeComet and MyTriggers lawsuits lack any merit. Unfortunately, these lawsuits' likely demise probably will only encourage the anti-Google forces to redirect their energy and resources into the multitudinous other efforts to bust Google.

Some specifics about this ruling:

* the state antitrust claim (the Valentine Act) fails because MyTriggers only alleged that Google harmed MyTriggers as a competitor, not that it harmed competition. In particular, MyTriggers alleged that Google favored some vertical search engines over others, so this allegation undercut MyTriggers' claim. MyTriggers' allegation of a boycott were too general, and its allegation of unilateral conduct weren't supported by any allegation of antitrust injury.

* MyTriggers' contract breach claim fails because MyTriggers never properly identified the allegedly breached contract or Google's breach.

* MyTriggers' promissory estoppel claim fails because MyTriggers couldn't allege a sufficiently unambiguous promise or any detrimental reliance on those promises.

* MyTriggers' rescission claim (based on fraud) failed for many of the same reasons: no identification of the contract and weak promises by Google.

Stepping back from the details, this is quite a stinging--and thorough--rejection of MyTriggers' pleadings, even though they were aided by many months of discovery. These are not the kinds of dismissal grounds one normally expects to see from a complaint drafted by lawyers with national reputations.

The only sour note is the judge's rejection of Google's 47 USC 230(c)(2) defense to the antitrust claims. Google's basic position is that it rejected MyTriggers' ads because it objected to them, and therefore it gets the statutory immunity for blocking "otherwise objectionable" content. The court rejects the contention, applying the ejusdem generis doctrine to interpret "otherwise objectionable" more narrowly. Citing the National Numismatics case, the court rejected the Langdon v. Google ruling and said that objectionable content must relate to porn, violence, obscenity or harassment. It distinguished other Google citations (such as the e360 case) as involving spam, which the court characterized as a subset of harassment, or 230(c)(1).

I don't agree with this reading of 47 USC 230(c)(2), and there are many cases applying the "otherwise objectionable" language more broadly than this court did. See my overall recap of 47 USC 230(c)(2). On the other hand, I think it's a tough sell for courts to apply 230(c)(2) to antitrust claims (see, e.g., the concurrence in Zango v. Kaspersky), and this ruling shows the natural reluctance of judges to go that direction.

Posted by Eric at 02:05 PM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Search Engines | TrackBack

August 24, 2011

Mixed DMCA Online Safe Harbor Ruling in Cloud-Based Music Locker Case--Capitol v. MP3Tunes

By Eric Goldman

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC, 2011 WL 3667335 (SDNY Aug. 22, 2011).

Background. This case involves MP3Tunes.com and Sideload.com. MP3Tunes is a music storage locker. Small lockers are free, but more storage is available at a price. The system doesn't store redundant copies; if the system recognizes an identical bit stream coming from a second user, it just records the hashtag. Sideload is a music search engine that lets users find free music on the Internet. (It was also a browser plug-in). If users find a music file they like, they can "sideload" the music file into their MP3Tunes' locker as a personal archive copy. MP3Tunes' database tracks the sources of these personally archived files.

Due to other issues being addressed in prior proceedings, this ruling primarily focuses on the applicability of the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. This court expressly interprets 512(d), the safe harbor for linking to infringing content--one of the rare opinions to do so. Like most 512 rulings, this ruling is lengthy and detailed, reflecting the fact that the plaintiff contested a long list of safe harbor elements. As I recently mentioned, god bless the pithy 47 USC 230 immunity and the short opinions it produces.

Result. The net effect is that most of MP3Tunes' operations got a 512 safe harbor defense, but it is contributorily liable for any infringing sideloaded files it didn't remove following a takedown notice, and MP3Tunes' CEO (the persistent Michael Robertson) may be personally liable for any infringing files he personally loaded into his locker. These rulings leave the defendants on the hook for potentially millions in damages. Other questions, such as liability for employees' uploads, were rolled over to trial. Because of this mixed ruling, both sides issued public statements touting their wins. As I'll explain momentarily, both sides also earn some brickbats from me.

Some of the post-ruling punditry has suggested this ruling provides a roadmap for other cloud-based music lockers, including the offerings from Apple, Amazon and Google. While that's partially true, the guidance is limited at best due to the fact-specific nature of the ruling. Perhaps the best news for the other services is that lockers may not have to store redundant copies of user-uploaded files to qualify for a Cablevision defense (see the EFF post for more on this). However, as the Zediva ruling recently showed, it remains uncertain how broadly other courts will read the Cablevision case. Otherwise, I think this case mostly tells us things we already knew but that copyright owners refuse to believe.

Out of this dense and slightly inscrutable ruling, some of the points that I found most interesting:

Bogus Takedown Notices (Yet Again...) EMI sent MP3Tunes overbroad takedown notices. The court says EMI affiliates "provided a list of EMI artists and demanded that MP3Tunes 'remove all of EMI's copyrighted works, even those not specifically identified.'" This was in 2007, NINE YEARS after the DMCA came into effect. Seriously, guys? 512(c)(3) isn't that complicated, and major copyright owners that send notices vastly in excess of 512(c)(3) look like greedy or clueless SOBs.

With the hope that we can avoid future SOBness, here's an offer I extend to any and all major copyright owners. I will happily give you a FREE tutorial on how to draft proper 512(c)(3) takedown notices so that you don't look as asinine as EMI looked here. I'm not worried about these trainings being too much of a drain on my time--they should only take about FIVE MINUTES and involve a variation of RTFM.

Needless to say, the court wasn't impressed by EMI's overreaching takedown notuices. It reminds EMI that a proper 512(c)(3) takedown notice requires the copyright owner to provide sufficient information to locate the infringing files (cite to Wolk v. Photobucket).

MP3Tunes' Takedown Policy. MP3Tunes took the puzzling position that, in response to the overreaching 512(c)(3) notices, it only had to remove specified links from Sideload and not any files downloaded from those URLs into personal lockers--even though MP3Tunes kept the source URLs in its database and could therefore trace those files. Now, if the users had downloaded the files to their hard drives, that wouldn't be MP3Tunes' issue--though, to be clear, the users probably don't have a fair use defense if the files are actually infringing (see, e.g,. the BMG v. Gonzalez case). However, as a cloud service provider, MP3Tunes needs to respond to 512(c)(3) notices when they meet the statutory requirements, even if the locker is supposed to be the user's "private" space. MP3Tunes loses the 512 safe harbor for these files because EMI's 512(c)(3) notices provided adequate information for MP3Tunes to locate the files, and the court says MP3Tunes is contributorily liable for these infringements. MP3Tunes argued a Sony defense that its lockers had substantial non-infringing uses, but the court says Sony applies only to products, not services.

It's unclear how this discussion applies to other cloud-based music lockers. The court distinguishes Viacom v. YouTube because Viacom could easily search YouTube for infringements--which isn't possible with private cloud-based lockers (just as it isn't possible with user hard drives). The court also asserts that any other lockers letting users "sideload" from the Internet must trace URL source and disable all files from that URL in response to a 512(c)(3) notice. But what if the music locker allows users to upload files from their hard drives and don't allow those to be searched? The opinion seems to deliberately avoid addressing that situation. [A related unresolved Q: how copyright owners can find private YouTube videos. I've posted a few myself for use in my Advertising Law course.]

The court dismisses MP3Tunes' seemingly overstated concerns about its liability to users for disabling files in their "private" lockers. MP3Tunes' user agreement expressly allowed this, as I would expect every other cloud service providers' user agreements to do.

Even so, it's 100% clear that cloud storage is different from hard drive storage, and some users are going to get quite a surprise when they learn that third parties can zap files from their cloud storage. (Recall the hubbub over Amazon's zapping of books from Kindle). If Congress weren't so dysfunctional, this would be a good place for a statutory fix. It would make a nice complement to the Digital Due Process initiative to fix the ECPA's application to the cloud.

It's worth noting that users weren't represented in this litigation and had no ability to show that their uses were fair, notwithstanding BMG v. Gonzalez and similar cases. If cloud-based music lockers simply pull the trigger on 512(c)(3) notices on an "ex parte" basis (i.e., without any input from the affected users), their fair use rights become effectively irrelevant unless the sites honor users' putback notices. I think it's critical for cloud-based music lockers enabling "private" lockers to address how they will deal with 512(c)(3) notices and if they will honor 512(g) putback notices. I'd welcome your thoughts on ways that we collectively can monitor cloud service providers' policies and practices on this topic.

Repeat Infringer Policy. MP3Tunes had an adequate repeat infringer policy because, among other things, its users weren't "blatant infringers" (they were just downloading files for personal use and may not have known better) and "MP3Tunes does not purposely blind itself to its users' identities and activities."

Red Flags of Infringement. I continue to assert that "red flags of infringement" is no longer possible given copyright owners' widespread practices of freely seeding their content on the Internet as marketing. EMI did that too. Indeed, the court says "EMI executives concede that internet users, including MP3tunes' users and executives, have no way of knowing for sure whether free songs on the internet are unauthorized." The court further dismisses EMI's mockable argument that the terms "free," "mp3" and "file-sharing" automatically confer red flags knowledge. EMI's takedown notices that didn't comply with 512(c)(3) didn't contribute to any red flags knowledge either.

Vicarious Infringement Standards. The court rejects that the sideloading feature contributed to "financial benefit" because, even if it was a "draw," it had non-infringing uses, and MP3Tunes didn't charge for its usage. MP3Tunes lacked the requisite "control" because it was a cloud storage solution.

Public Performance. EMI argued that MP3Tunes publicly performed the files in users' lockers. MP3Tunes responded with a Cablevision defense. The court explains that MP3Tunes doesn't deliver files from a "master copy" (even though redundant copies aren't made) but instead "uses a standard data compression algorithm that eliminates redundant digital data" and therefore preserves exact digital copies. Thus, MP3Tunes wasn't publicly performing. I didn't understand the technological distinction the court was making, but I didn't find it persuasive at all. The court also distinguished Cablevision because it couldn't qualify for 512, while MP3Tunes does.

DMCA's Applicability to pre-72 Sound Recordings. FN1 says that 512 applies to pre-1972 sound recordings:

The Court agrees with Defendants that the plain meaning of the statutory language makes the DMCA safe harbors applicable to both state and federal copyright claims. Thus, the DMCA applies to sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972.

I believe this is the first ruling reaching this conclusion (am I forgetting one?). The court didn't offer any citations or analysis in support of this conclusion, and I anticipate this issue will continue to be litigated fiercely.

Reminder: in case you missed it, I recently caught up on 4 months worth of online copyright rulings, including several addressing the same or similar issues as this case.

Other comments on this ruling: Techdirt, EFF, CNET News.com

Posted by Eric at 02:26 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

Court Affirms Robust ISP Protection For Blocking Bulk Emails -- Holomaxx v. Microsoft/Yahoo

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Holomaxx v. Microsoft, 2011 WL 3740813 (N.D. Cal. Aug, 23, 2011) [pdf]
Holomaxx v. Yahoo, 2011 WL 3740827 (N.D. Cal. Aug, 23, 2011) [pdf]

Eric and I both previously posted on the Holomaxx cases, where Holomaxx sued Yahoo and Microsoft for blocking or filtering bulk emails transmitted by Holomaxx. The court granted motions to dismiss filed against Holomaxx with leave to amend. ("Bulk Emailers (Mostly) Lose Three 47 USC 230(c)(2) Rulings--Holomaxx v. Microsoft/Yahoo & Smith v. TRUSTe.") Holomaxx filed an amended complaint, but it produced no better results. The second time around, the court permanently shuts the door on Holomaxx's claims, finding again that Section 230(c)(2)(A) insulates the ISP's filtering decisions and dismissing without leave to amend.

The result was not terribly surprising, given that the court was initially skeptical of Holomaxx's vague allegations that the ISPs harbored some sort of bad faith when they blocked Holomaxx's bulk emails. As Laura Wise notes in her recap of the oral argument, Judge Fogel asked Holomaxx for its "absolute best argument" that Microsoft and Yahoo harbored some sort of bad faith intent, and he was not swayed by what Holomaxx had to offer. Judge Fogel concludes that the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group guidelines which Microsoft and Yahoo allegedly deviated from are not an "industry standard," so Microsoft or Yahoo could be faulted for not following them. He also concludes that the fact that the filtering efforts stopped and re-started is not in any way indicative of bad faith. While he acknowledged some tension between Section 230's robust grant of immunity and Judge Fisher's concern (in Zango v. Kaspersky) that a service provider may abuse filtering immunity by blocking content for "anticompetitive purposes or merely at its malicious whim," the court says that allowing Holomaxx to proceed with only its vague allegation of bad faith would undermine Section 230:

To permit Holomaxx to proceed solely on the basis of a conclusory allegation that [the ISP] acted in bad faith would essentially rewrite the CDA.

The court also dismisses Holomaxx's claims under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act based in part on Holomaxx's failure to articulate how exactly Microsoft and Yahoo violated these statutes in the course of their filtering efforts. (These statutes are excluded from Section 230 so the court deals with them separately.)

__

As with blocking or filtering decisions targeted at malware or spyware, complaining that the ISP was improperly filtering bulk email (spam) is likely to fall on unsympathetic ears. It would take a lot for a court to allow a bulk emailer to conduct discovery on the filtering processes and metrics employed by an ISP. (Hence the rulings on a 12b motion, rather than on summary judgment.) Here the court reiterates the "good faith" standard for 230(c)(2) is measured subjectively, not objectively. That puts a heavy burden on plaintiffs to show subjective bad faith. Eric's reaction to the Zango case--where the Ninth Circuit held that anti-spyware company Kaspersky's decision to classify Zango as adware was protected--largely alludes to this result:

this opinion is terrific news for vendors of anti-spam/anti-spyware/anti-virus services. Although we have long suspected that they would be protected under 230(c)(2), this opinion codifies their immunization as Ninth Circuit law. As a result, these vendors should continue to have a high degree of freedom to make judgments about how to best serve their customers. On the flip side, this opinion confirms that anyone blacklisted by these software vendors can’t use judicial proceedings to change the classification. Fortunately, most reputable vendors offer an extra-judicial mechanism to correct their misclassification errors.

The only difference is that Microsoft and Yahoo are ISPs, and they could use unfettered filtering discretion to block competitive content, links, or maybe even throttle users (or skew search results). Holomaxx's complaint did not credibly raise any such concerns, so the judge dismisses them.

Previous posts and other coverage:

* Bulk Emailers (Mostly) Lose Three 47 USC 230(c)(2) Rulings--Holomaxx v. Microsoft/Yahoo & Smith v. TRUSTe
* Amendment was futile (Laura Wise)

Posted by Venkat at 11:13 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability , Spam

August 22, 2011

Deep Packet Inspection Lawsuits: NebuAd Partner ISP Wins Summary Judgment -- Kirch v. Embarq

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with comments from Eric]

Kirch v. Embarq, 10-2047-JAR (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2011)

The fallout from Nebuad's ill-fated deep packet inspection continues to percolate through the courts. Plaintiffs sued NebuAd and ISPs in the same forum in Northern California, but the ISPs were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, requiring plaintiffs to pursue them through local lawsuits. NebuAd reportedly shut down, but lawyers recently announced a settlement over claims against NebuAd. (See: "NebuAd Settles Lawsuit Over Behavioral Targeting Tests.") Interestingly, the $2.4M from the proposed settlement will go to public interest organizations and the lawyers--there's no class payout, and just small payments to the named plaintiffs. This is fairly typical in privacy lawsuits, but settlements like these have elicited a few challenges, most prominently in Facebook's Beacon settlement (which is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit).

This particular case is one of the end users' cases against ISPs. They brought claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy and trespass to chattels. They voluntarily dismissed the invasion of privacy, trespass and CFAA claims. This left the ECPA claim. (The court says the claims were dismissed pursuant to "stipulation," but does not get into detail as to whether there was any settlement associated with this dismissal.)

No derivative liability: The court found for summary judgment purposes that Embarq did not have access to the contents of user communications. Embarq admittedly facilitated NebuAd's tracking and targeting, but this is not enough for plaintiffs to hold Embarq liable:

As plaintiffs' expert testified, Embarq's role was to install the NebuAd device so as to furnish the UTA connection to NebuAd. In other words, the NebuAd device . . . goes into place, then all of the raw data that flows through Embarq is directed to that device, where NebuAd does the analysis and, apparently, separates out the Port 80 traffic. Moreover, plaintiffs cite no authority that Embarq's access to the raw data that flowed through its network constitutes a violation of the ECPA, which requires an entity to actually acquire the contents of those communications. There is nothing in the record that Embarq itself acquired the contents of any communications as they flowed through its network; instead, plaintiffs' theory rests on the notion that the NebuAd System extracted the contents of the communications. Plaintiffs' assertion that Embarq 'endeavored to intercept' communications falls short of creating civil liability under the ECPA, which creates liability for actual interception.

Plaintiffs pointed to the contractual relationship between Embarq and NebuAd as a basis for holding Embarq indirectly liable. The court says clearly that the "civil liability provision of the ECPA . . . does not provide for secondary liability."

User consent: The court also grants Embarq summary judgment on the basis that to the extent there was improper interception, the users consented to it. Embarq's "activation agreement" pointed to its privacy policy and said Embarq could revise it. Prior to deployment of NebuAd, Embarq posted a new paragraph in its privacy policy entitled "preference advertising." This paragraph informed subscribers that:

Embarq may use information such as the websites you visit or online searches that you conduct to deliver or facilitate the delivery of targeted advertisements. The delivery of these advertisements will be based on anonymous surfing behavior and will not include users' names, email addresses, telephone numbers, or any other Personally Identifiable Information.
You may choose to opt out of this preference advertising service. By opting out, you will continue to receive advertisements as normal; but these advertisements will be less relevant and less useful to you. If you would like to opt out, click here. (embarq.com/options)

Subscribers were given an opportunity to opt-out by clicking on a link. Plaintiffs made three arguments as to why this consent should not be viewed as being effective, but the court summarily rejects them all, relying in part on Mortensen v. Bresnan: (1) the scope of the disclosure was inadequate and did not identify NebuAd; (2) the notice was not conspicuous enough; and (3) the opt-out mechanism was insufficient.
__

The NebuAd deep packet inspection idea was ill-fated, but it's interesting to see the litigation play out as it has. NebuAd's insurers settled for a relatively small amount. The claims against the individual ISPs are struggling, and when you throw requests to compel arbitration based on the Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion into the mix, it's going to end up being a long road for plaintiffs.

I'm not sure I can think of a principled reason for this, but I've always viewed deep packet inspection as something that crossed the line. But under existing privacy laws, it's not easy to hold ISPs who partnered with NebuAd liable. Privacy plaintiffs continue to push the envelope but they are repeatedly rebuffed by the courts. As Eric notes, the statutes under which plaintiffs assert causes of action in privacy class actions are convoluted, confusing, and in need of a much-anticipated revamp.

As with the flash cookie cases, I'm curious about the FTC's role in the regulatory quagmire. I would think they could have a significant effect in the area if they came in and took type of action they took against the likes of Google and Twitter against the players in this space. Maybe I'm missing something or there are institutional factors at play (or activities going on behind the scenes), but it certainly seems like the FTC has extracted a large quantity of blood in some situations but is ineffectual or slow to act in others.

Previous posts on NebuAd:

Deep Packet Inspection (NebuAd) Litigation: Court Dismisses ECPA Claim but CFAA Claim Continues
NebuAd Deep Packet Inspection Lawsuits Sputter -- Deering v. CenturyTel & Green v. Cable One

Additional coverage:

Wendy Davis: "Embarq Wins Privacy Suit Stemming From NebuAd Tests"
__

Eric's comments

1) For sake of completeness, I note that a 47 USC 230 defense wouldn't have helped Embarq against the derivative ECPA claim because 230's immunity expressly excludes ECPA claims. See 47 USC 230(e)(4). Thus, this case failed on the prima facie elements. The court says confidently (cites omitted):

The civil liability provision of the ECPA, however, does not provide for secondary liability, as liability attaches only to the party that actually intercepted a communication. As numerous courts have consistently held, a defendant does not “intercept” a communication merely by allowing or enabling, or even directing, another party to intercept communications.

2) The court's conclusion about consent is interesting:

plaintiffs were required to agree to the terms of the Activation Agreement in order to use Embarq’s Internet service; that Agreement incorporated the terms of the Privacy Policy, which informed subscribers that their de-identified data could be shared with third parties; that Agreement informed subscribers that the terms could be changed at any time through posting a new policy at Embarq’s website; and Embarq modified those terms in advance of the NebuAd test to add a paragraph regarding preference advertising, with an opt-out mechanism.

This summary, very much in line with the Mortensen case, shows an extreme judicial deference to Embarq's contract--both in terms of letting broad opaque language serve as user "consent" and letting Embarq unilaterally amend the contract to add new and different terms. We've seen other courts push back on both practices, so I wouldn't recommend Embarq's approach as an industry best practice. It seems especially odd that courts have been so deferential on consent issues given the inherent disagreeability of NebuAd's DPI practices.

3) Along with last week's Bose v. Interclick ruling, chalk this up as another plaintiff loss in a privacy case that most people probably thought was a slam dunk. So many of the pending privacy lawsuits are filed solely because defendants will pay to avoid the adjudication costs of defending their practices under poorly drafted statutes, not because there's any fundamental merit to the cases. We desperately need a complete rewrite of the CFAA and ECPA simply to put them in English so that everyone has a better sense of which cases are meritorious from the outset.

4) An interesting factoid: NebuAd paid less than $30k to Embarq for the trial period. Note to future IAPs who want to experiment with potentially privacy-invasive technologies: it isn't a good financial deal for you! Or, at minimum, get the vendor's insurer to stand behind the vendor's indemnity clause so that you won't spend many multiples of the associated revenue defending yourself when the vendor goes belly-up.

Posted by Venkat at 04:27 PM | Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Privacy/Security

August 17, 2011

Backpage Gets 47 USC 230 Defense for Prostitution Ads--M.A. v. Village Voice

By Eric Goldman

M.A. v. Village Voice Media Holdings LLC, 2011 WL 3607660 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 15, 2011)

M.A. was the victim of a convicted sexual trafficker, Latasha Jewell McFarland. M.A. alleges that McFarland created child pornography of M.A., posted the photos on Backpage as part of advertising M.A. for prostitution, and then acted as a pimp for M.A. M.A. sued Backpage for its role in the tragedy.

The court starts with an interesting discussion about Article III standing. M.A. took the position that she's suing Backpage for running its website, not for the content of McFarland's post. This distinction doesn't make any sense, and the court uses Article III standing to collapse it. M.A.'s real complaint is about McFarland's crimes against her, and the only way M.A. has standing against Backpage for those crimes is based on McFarland's posts to Backpage. Framed this way, Backpage is primed for a 47 USC 230 defense.

M.A. took a comprehensive approach to trying to dislodge the immunity:

* Backpage allows keyword searches. Citing several cases, including Jurin and Rosetta Stone, the court says this is irrelevant.

* Backpage created an adult category. The court cites Dart v. Craigslist in concluding this is irrelevant.

* Backpage takes steps to increase its revenues. Backpage allegedly "tout[ed] its website as a 'highly tuned marketing site' and instruct[ed] posters of ads on how to best increase the impact of those ads." The court responds: "to find Backpage to be not immune from suit based on M.A.'s allegations about how it structured its website in order to increase its profits would be to create a for-profit exception to § 230's broad grant of immunity. This the Court may not do."

* Backpage allegedly knew prostitution was advertised on the site. The court cites several cases for the proposition that knowledge is irrelevant to 230's immunity.

* Backpage "developed" the ads. This was just a rehash of the notice + profit argument. The court says "neither notice or profit make Backpage liable for the content and consequences of the ads posted by McFarland." The court expressly rejects the direct Roommates.com attack on the immunity, distinguishing Roommates and a few other cases by saying " In the instant case, there is no allegation that Backpage was responsible for the development of any portion of the content of McFarland's posted ads or specifically encouraged the development of the offensive nature of that content." The court also notes: "however horrific the consequences to M.A. of McFarland's posted ads were, the ads were created by McFarland."

* Giving Backpage a 230 immunity is "indefensible." This is basically a policy argument, and the court tells M.A. to take it up with Congress.

* Backpage "aided and abetted" a criminal violation. Backpage lacked the specific intent to satisfy the prima facie case. It appears the court also says that 230 preempts aiding-and-abetting liability.

* 230 doesn't apply to criminal prosecutions. This is a civil case premised on a criminal statute, and the court cites Doe v. Bates for the proposition that 230 preempts the civil claims. M.A. argued that Bates was "flawed," but the court responds "[Bates] is supported, however, by other cases applying the broad reach of § 230's immunity to websites that, whatever they did to increase their profitability and visibility, did not create the content of the offensive posted information." The court continues: "this does not lead M.A. without a remedy under § 2255. She may still pursue a civil remedy against McFarland." (And, in fact, McFarland has been required to make restitution and pay other amounts as part of her criminal sentence).

* The "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography" trumps 230. This treaty wasn't self-executing. Plus, when the Senate ratified it, it declared existing law--which included 230 already on the books--satisfied the treaty.

The court neatly sums things up:

Plaintiff artfully and eloquently attempts to phrase her allegations to avoid the reach of § 230. Those allegations, however, do not distinguish the complained-of actions of Backpage from any other website that posted content that led to an innocent person's injury. Congress has declared such websites to be immune from suits arising from such injuries.

You have to give M.A. credit for effort. The lawsuits tried virtually every trick in the book to overcome the 230 immunity. But you also have to give the judge credit, both for keeping a cool head and for the skillful references to a couple dozen 230 precedent cases.

Combined with Dart v. Craigslist, it seems entirely clear to me that plaintiffs are wasting their time suing classified ad websites for prostitution ads. M.A.'s situation is tragic, but the blame against Backpage is misdirected.

Posted by Eric at 01:44 PM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

August 12, 2011

Catching Up on 4 Months of Online Copyright Cases--Myxer, Hotfile, Megaupload, Flava Works, Zediva, Blue Nile, Perfect 10, Rojadirecta

By Eric Goldman

Online copyright cases have been coming at such a furious pace that I haven't had a chance to keep up. This blog post wraps up the last 4 months of decisions.

Arista Records v. Myxer, Inc., 2:08-cv-03935-GAF-JC (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2011)

Myxer allows users to upload sound files and create downloadable ringtones up to 40 seconds long. The plaintiffs claimed 90+% of the ringtones were at least 34 seconds; but Myxer claims its average length is 25 seconds and that this is shorter than Audible Magic can reliably filter. Myxer claims to be a tool for independent artists to easily get their music into the mobile environment, but of course users can upload third party copyrighted material. UMG objects to the ringtones at Myxer because the downloadable ringtones disrupt its paid-download ringtones business. For reasons that aren't explained, UMG apparently never sent a proper 512 takedown notice, and Myxer treated the complaint as a takedown notice.

In a perplexing but unexplained statement, the court says "The undisputed facts in the present record establish that Myxer has directly infringed at least one of Plaintiff's exclusive rights, pursuant to § 106." The court further says there is no "volitional" defense in the 9th Circuit. This shifts the battle over the 512 safe harbors.

Agreeing with the UMG and YouTube cases, the court says user downloading qualifies for 512 coverage. The adequacy of Myxer's repeat infringer policy and the expeditiousness of its removal was deferred to trial. Citing Io, the fact that terminated users could re-register didn't disqualify Myxer from the 512 defense. The court rejected UMG's arguments that Myxer had generalized knowledge of infringement and says "to the extent that Plaintiff suggests that Myxer should have taken additional steps to filter infringing material on the Myxer Website, ‘the DMCA does not place the burden of ferreting out infringement on the service provider.’" With respect to direct financial benefit, the court says the test is "whether the infringing activity constitutes a ‘draw’ for users, not just an added benefit."

Myxer also loses a fair use defense. It's pretty clear that Myxer kept the maximum ringtone length fairly short as part of a fair use strategy, but the court circularly says Myxer took the best part, i.e., the chorus.

The most remarkable thing about this opinion is its length--75 pages. Easily, 17 USC 512 opinions are, on average, double or even triple the length of 47 USC 230 opinions. That's because 17 USC 512 has so many more words--and elements--than the pithy 47 USC 230, and plaintiffs contest virtually every word in a 512 defense. This makes for long and sometimes ponderous opinions. As a reader of judicial opinions, let's hear it for short immunities!

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Hotfile Corp., 11-20427-CIV-JORDAN (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2011)

Hotfile is a cyberlocker. Part of its business model is to give faster download speeds to paying members. Hotfile pays uploaders who post popular large files, which could naturally encourage people to upload infringing files.

Unlike the Myxer case, and following in the footsteps of the old Netcom case, the court rejects Hotfile's direct liability: "the law is clear that Hotfile and Mr. Titov are not liable for direct copyright infringement because they own and manage internet facilities that allow others to upload and download copyrighted material.... nothing in the complaint alleges that Hotfile or Mr. Titov took direct, volitional steps to violate the plaintiffs’ infringement" [sic—the last word should have been "copyright"]. As a result, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim.

The court distinguishes some 1990s cases (Webbworld and Russ Hardenburgh, among others) suggesting otherwise, saying that, in those cases, the defendants uploaded files themselves or used software to search for files. The court also expressly disagrees with Capitol v. MP3Tunes and Arista v. USENET.com. This is a pretty unpersuasive distinction based on the facts of the precedent cases, and I think it highlights the weakness of the "volitional" defense. The fact is that all but the most passive of hosts or conduits take some affirmative steps towards customizing the downloader's experience, and trying to parse which of those steps constitute "volitional" conduct and which don't is leading to the inevitable doctrinal incoherence.

Having said that, I thought we decided that web hosts aren't directly liable for user-caused infringement 15 years ago. I can't believe we're still wasting our time on this issue in 2011.

Not surprisingly, the secondary infringement claims survived the motion to dismiss.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Megaupload Ltd., 2011 WL 3203117 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2011)

Megaupload is another cyberlocker with a terrible brand name. Its business model appears similar to Hotfile's. Like Hotfile, it also sought a motion to dismiss the direct infringement claim. Unlike Hotfile, the court sees enough volitional conduct to survive the claim. It would have been great if the opinion did a compare/contrast with the Hotfile opinion, but sadly Hotfile wasn't mentioned at all--but, naturally, the MP3Tunes and Usenet.com cases (the ones the Hotfile court trashed) were. Sigh.

As usual, Perfect 10 apparently failed to send a proper 512(c)(3) takedown notice. They sent 22 notices in all, but allegedly 21 related to stuff that wasn't theirs. (Huh?) The court can't do much with this on a motion to dismiss and tells Megaupload to put it in its answer. The court does dismiss the vicarious infringement claim, saying that Perfect 10 didn't properly allege the requisite supervision over infringing activity beyond alleging supervision of the system.

Perfect 10's trademark infringement claims get Dastar-ed, but the dilution claims survive. Perfect 10's allegation is tarnishment because its high-quality photos are intermingled with junk photos. Seriously?

Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, 2011 WL 3205399 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2011)

This case involves myVidster, another lousy trademark. After the cataclysmic flameouts of Napster, Grokster, Aimster, Friendster and so many others, who thinks the "-ster" suffix is still cool??? myVidster is small operation, mostly focused on porn, that allows users to "bookmark" a video. From the description, it sounds like myVidster is like a delicious-style link aggregator that embeds the linked videos, but the court confusingly goes out of its way to say myVidster isn't a linking site:

MyVidster does not simply link to video files displayed on another site; it embeds the files on its own site at the direction of users. In other words, when a visitor to myVidster clicks on a video that is posted there, the video plays directly on myVidster, and the visitor remains on the myVidster site; he or she is not taken to the site that hosts the video file.

Right, that sounds like a linking site to me. It's not clear to me how defense counsel failed to get the judge to grasp this essential fact.

The court describes that myVidster adds some metadata. The court shares this panicky observation: "In cases where a myVidster user bookmarks another user’s bookmark, the ‘source code’ will be a myVidster URL even though the original file of the video may be hosted elsewhere." Quelle horreur! Exactly where would the court like that link to go? The court might not have realized that linking user #1 might have added its own metadata or other users may have posted comments that linking user #2 would want to incorporate.

Flava produces gay ethnic porn. It discovered that myVidster users were embedding lots of its content. It sent multiple DMCA takedown notices. Flava claimed that myVidster's response to its takedown notices was erratic--sometimes it would take everything down, sometimes it would remove the link but leave up a thumbnail, and sometimes it would ignore the notice. myVidster responded that it did a better job than that and produced a chart showing its responsiveness. The court discounts the chart because it was not prepared on a timely basis and wasn't sufficiently credible in its preparation, but in a footnote, the court makes it clear it just didn't believe myVidster's principal:

In any event, although it does appear that it was sometimes like pulling teeth to obtain full compliance from Gunter, as discussed infra, the crux of the problem here is not so much the removal of the infringing videos; it is Gunter’s attitude toward copyright protection and his related refusal to adopt measures to prevent or reduce copyright infringement on myVidster as well as to adopt and implement an appropriate policy regarding repeat infringers.

This quote shows that it’s not a good idea to displease judges hearing online copyright cases. As we learned in Io v. Veoh, websites that go beyond the DMCA and proactively fight copyright infringement get a lot of extra credit from judges. For more on this in the trademark context, see Stacey Dogan’s new article, “We Know It When We See It.”

In myVidster's case, its principal took the highly unusual position that anything publicly posted to the Internet was fair game for linking--irrespective of its underlying copyright status. For example, the principal said: "my policy on repeat infringers are those who are using myVidster as a ways and means to distribute content that is not publicly available." He repeatedly told copyright complainants to take it up with the video host, because removing the links from his site wouldn't remove the file itself from the Internet. This is true, but it's not really sensitive to the emerging legal obligations of intermediaries.

Based on the view that anything publicly posted was freely linkable, user-posted links implicated myVidster's repeat infringer policy only if they went to password-protected sites or private URLs. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer recommended this standard. Because of this policy’s incredibly narrow scope, myVidster only had a single user who got a repeat infringer warning. The court didn't have kind words for this policy: "Gunter’s ‘repeat infringer’ policy is in fact no policy at all, at least with respect to copyright infringement....His definition of ‘repeat infringer’ does not encompass copyright law."

The court has little trouble establishing prima facie contributory copyright infringement. Users posted links to infringing videos. myVidster's principal knew of these links from the DMCA takedown notices. He didn't remove the links (or only partially remove them) upon notice. The court says his view about the free linkability of publicly posted but infringing videos "is the epitome of ‘willful blindness.’" The court also cites his failure to implement filters to prevent repeat infringement or to take recourse against the infringing users.

The general operation of a linking site counted as a material contribution. It also cited the fact that the site offered paid hosting as a way to avoid the possible breakage of links (the court said that "encouraged" infringement), and the site's principal also encouraged infringement through his own personal "favorites" list, which included “Star Trek,” “Crank 2,” and “Hancock”--and at a hearing, he stubbornly said that only the copyright owner could tell if the movie posting was infringing. The court also cited the website’s failure to discourage users from infringing copyrights—this was a doctrinal shortcut by the court.

Needless to say, myVidster doesn't get a 512 defense. The court says brusquely: "It is difficult for us to understand how defendants can argue with a straight face that they have adopted and reasonably implemented a ‘repeat infringer’ policy."

It's frustrating to see a ruling like this. myVidster had a legitimate chance of legal success if it got competent legal counsel from day 1 (or, if they did, if they listened to their lawyers) and baked in even the minimum industry-standard anti-infringement efforts. But the misguided view that anything online was linkable couldn’t be defended in court, and the extremeness of that view (combined with the principal's mule-like refusal to give any ground) gave the court too much liberty to say doctrinally unhelpful things as part of a judicial bodyslam.

Although it's largely mooted by the summary judgment opinion, the court's opinion on the motion to dismiss is also interesting. The court dismissed the direct infringement claim (correctly IMO), and on the vicarious infringement claim, echoed the (uncited) Perfect 10 opinion by saying that "To sufficiently allege the element of “right and ability to supervise,” plaintiff will have to allege more than the mere ownership and operation of myVidster." Similarly, the court follows in the (uncited) Myxer court's footsteps by saying the plaintiff "does not allege that the presence of the infringing material on the site enhances the site’s attractiveness or draws customers." As a result, the court tossed the vicarious infringement claim too. The inducement claim also dropped out because of "formulaic" pleading. Finally, the court tossed the trademark claims because they didn't show how myVidster made a use in commerce. Yet, all of these defense-favorable rulings that narrowed the case didn't save myVidster from a disastrous contributory copyright infringement ruling. But, for other defendants, it shows how victory was attainable for myVidster had it followed a better recipe for clean living.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc., 2:11-cv-02817-JFW -E (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011)

Unlike most of the other cases here, this is not principally a secondary infringement case. However, it bears some commonalities with the other cases.

Zediva was trying to find a way to take advantage of the Cablevision case to offer a video "rental" service online. Zediva would acquire DVDs and essentially check them out to paying customers such that only 1 customer could enjoy the DVD at any one time. Frankly, if the Cablevision case is good law, Zediva has a point. However, I've been troubled by the Cablevision precedent, and this opinion shows that Cablevision isn't a very robust precedent as the court basically says "nyet" to a similar application in a new context.

Zediva's main failing is that it doesn't maintain separate copies of the downloadable file for each viewer as Cablevision did. Of course, that probably wouldn't be profitable for Zediva, because it presumably needs to amortize the DVD's purchase price over multiple viewers. (Unlike Cablevision, which had already paid for the license fee to obtain the digital bits through its cable retransmission license). Then again, it would be really lame if the legal rule is that we have to build wasteful redundant systems to avoid copyright infringement. That was the implicit rule from Cablevision, and this court doesn't let Zediva cut that corner.

The court says Zediva is publicly performing the videos. Its main citation is to the On Command case from 2 decades ago and the Redd Horne case from over a quarter-century ago. How's this for some circular logic: "Defendants’ transmissions are ‘to the public’ because the relationship between Defendants, as the transmitter of the performance, and the audience, which in this case consists of their customers, is a commercial, ‘public’ relationship regardless of where the viewing takes place." Huh? The court distinguishes Cablevision because each viewer had his/her own dedicated copy of the video, unlike the shared copy of the DVD in this case.

Citing the Myxer case (discussed above), the court says that the Ninth Circuit hasn't adopted a volitional defense.

This opinion is pretty bad, but IMO the worst part is the court's discussion of irreparable injury. Check out this parade of horribles:

* Zediva might "jeopardize the continued existence of Plaintiffs’ licensees’ businesses" (really?!) because consumers find Zediva’s service more attractive than the crappy options officially sanctioned by the movie studios.

* "Defendants’ service threatens the development of a successful and lawful video on demand market and, in particular, the growing internet-based video on demand market. The presence of Defendants’ service in this market threatens to confuse consumers about video on demand products, and to create incorrect but lasting impressions with consumers about what constitutes lawful video on demand exploitation of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works, including confusion or doubt regarding whether payment is required for access to the Copyrighted Works."

* "Defendants’ service also threatens the development of a successful and lawful video on demand market by offering a sub-optimal customer experience and, thus, tarnishing customers’ perception of video on demand as an attractive option for viewing Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works." In particular, the court cites Zediva's inability to let multiple customers share the same DVD simultaneously against it, saying that telling customers that a video is "out of stock" will turn off video-on-demand customers permanently.

After reading this, I get the sense that the movie studios think the video-on-demand industry is more fragile than a 1980s Jaguar.

The court spent a lot of time discussing the movie studios' windowing. This reminded me of recent language from the Second Circuit Barclays' case:

The adoption of new technology that injures or destroys present business models is commonplace. Whether fair or not, that cannot, without more, be prevented by application of the misappropriation tort.

Perhaps copyright law can prevent it.

Blue Nile Inc. v. Ideal Diamond Solutions Inc., 2011 WL 3360664 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2011)

This is a piercing-the-corporate-veil case. Chasin is the principal of IDS, an outsourced online jewelry website operator for offline jewelry retailers. Blue Nile (remember them?) claims IDS republished its copyrighted product shots. Chasin defended that he personally didn't do it, so he should not be personally liable. The court grants summary judgment to Blue Nile.

On direct infringement, the court says (footnotes omitted):

There is no question that IDS was the “brainchild” of Larry Chasin, that IDS “was a small company”, and that Chasin “controlled the corporate affairs”. In addition to creating and controlling IDS, Chasin licensed the development of the infringing websites, and had the power to direct the removal of infringing content.

Any lack of knowledge goes to damages as an innocent infringer, not to the merits. Of course, if the photos had a copyright notice, the innocent infringement defense may be unavailable, so I'm not sure the court did Chasin any favors there.

On vicarious infringement, the court says (cites omitted):

Chasin admits that he had the ability to remove the infringing content and that he controlled the corporate affairs of IDS; thus he had the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity. He also admits that he personally invested “over $440,000 cash” into IDS and that he received salary and benefits from IDS, thereby giving him a direct financial interest in IDS.

Without more insight into the source of the allegedly infringing photos, it's hard to know just how bad this ruling is. I believe that officer/investor liability for a company's copyright infringement remains undertheorized, and I'd love to see more attention paid both to the doctrinal fine points and to the policy implications of treating someone like Chasin as a direct and vicarious copyright infringer. If you’re looking for a paper topic, this might be worth considering.

I also continue to howl that product shot-related lawsuits are a ridiculous tax on the entire retailing industry, and an area that desperately needs reform. One idea I've been kicking around is a commons-style repository of product shots. If you're interested in kicking this idea around, contact me.

Perfect 10 v. Google, No. 10-56316 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2011)

Perfect 10 is in the Ninth Circuit again. This Ninth Circuit panel (the opinion was written by Judge Ikuta) made it very clear that it did not want to discuss the main event--i.e., the merits of Perfect 10's lawsuit against Google. I think that's because the panel knows that the case's substantive issues are coming back to it soon enough (it's interlocutory now), and this panel didn't want to skew the substantive analysis when the time comes.

Instead, this opinion is about the standards for a preliminary injunction in copyright cases. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief to Perfect 10, while at the same time ruling mostly in Google's favor. In this opinion, the Ninth Circuit weaves eBay v. MercExchange into the standards for preliminary injunctions in copyright cases. The court holds:

We therefore conclude that the propriety of injunctive relief in cases arising under the Copyright Act must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accord with traditional equitable principles and without the aid of presumptions or a “thumb on the scale” in favor of issuing such relief.

As a practical matter, this opinion ought to make it harder for copyright plaintiffs to get preliminary injunctions, And unlike many recent Ninth Circuit opinions, I believe there's a realistic chance that other Ninth Circuit panels will honor this holding. The opinion is well-reasoned and a logical extension of the Supreme Court's eBay decision.

The court goes on to say that it wasn't an abuse of discretion to deny a preliminary injunction to Perfect 10, even if it meant they would go out of business. (We can only hope). Basically, the court called BS on Perfect 10's claim that Google is wrecking its business, noting (among other things) that Perfect 10 "failed to submit a statement from even a single former subscriber who ceased paying for Perfect 10’s service because of the content freely available via Google." It is really hard to be too sympathetic towards a copyright owner who seems far more passionate about litigating than in giving consumers reasons to patronize it.

Puerto 80 Projects SLU v. USA, 1:11-cv-04139-PAC (SDNY Aug. 4, 2011)

Rojadirecta is a Spanish operation that runs linking sites. Naturally, some links are to infringing material. Rather than send takedown notices or sue Rojadirecta for infringement, the US government (DHS ICE) just took the domain names on the theory that they were being used to commit criminal copyright infringement. There are numerous problems with ICE’s seizure, including jurisdiction (Rojadirecta is legal in its home country), doctrine (the US government will have a tough time showing criminal copyright infringement), procedure (all of this was done without an adversarial process) and the Constitution (the domain name was the functional equivalent of a printing press for Rojadirecta). The DHS ICE's efforts to shut down a purportedly "rogue" site has, in fact, caused our own government to go rogue itself.

In this lawsuit, Rojadirecta tries to get its domain name back. The applicable statute was designed to govern physical chattel, not virtual printing presses. In a remarkably tone-deaf opinion, the court has none of it. The statute at issue effectively puts the burden on Rojadirecta--an odd place for the burden to rest, given that the US government still hasn't proven anything--and the court doesn't see enough reason to disturb the status quo.

Consider the tone-deafness of the court's response, keeping in mind that the underlying allegation is criminal copyright infringement, where the government's burden should be higher than in a civil case. Rojadirecta argues that it's losing users who can't find it due to the seized domains. The court responds that Rojadirecta has other domains, and "Rojadirecta has a large internet presence and can simply distribute information about the seizure and its new domain names to its customers." Well, yes, it can bang the drum through other media, but by definition there's no way to ensure the publicity reaches folks who only knew of Rojadirecta at the seized domains. Contrast Judge Kozinski's discussion in the Toyota v. Tabari case, a trademark lawsuit over a domain name:

the Tabaris needed to communicate that they specialize in Lexus vehicles, and using the Lexus mark in their domain names accomplished this goal. While using Lexus in their domain names wasn’t the only way to communicate the nature of their business, the same could be said of virtually any choice the Tabaris made about how to convey their message.

In general, it's repugnant under the First Amendment for the court to second-guess a publisher's choices of how to communicate with its audience. Here, the court does just that, and ignores any lost audience because ICE has blocked the publisher's preferred communication method. Corynne at the EFF has more to say about this point.

The court makes the same error when it expressly discusses the First Amendment. The court says "the fact that visitors must now go to other websites to partake in the same discussions is clearly not the kind of substantial hardship that Congress intended to ameliorate in enacting § 983." That is true, but only because 983 contemplated the government would seize physical chattels that putatively facilitate crimes, not virtual printing presses. So when the government misuses its power to reach speech-facilitating chattels, the court should modulate accordingly.

The judge doesn't permanently shut the door on the First Amendment issues or other relevant defenses, but he's apparently not yet appreciated the magnitude of the government's errors either.

Posted by Eric at 09:29 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

August 05, 2011

TheDirty Defeats Publicity Rights Claims--Gauck v. Karamian

By Eric Goldman

Gauck v. Karamian, 2011 WL 3273123 (W.D.Tenn. July 29, 2011)

TheDirty.com has an increasingly active litigation docket. This case comes from Lauren Lee Gauck Giovanetti, a TV news reporter for Fox 13 in Memphis, Tennessee. She sued over two user-submitted posts to TheDirty that claimed she "used illicit drugs, was sexually promiscuous, exchanged sexual favors in return for drugs and money, and assaulted an unknown person." The posts contained photos of her and several nude photos that also claimed to be of her, but she denied that claim. As usual, Nik Richie added his terse and snarky comments to the user posts. He also watermarked the photos and covered up portions of the nude photos.

Gauck sought an injunction based on her publicity rights. The court sidesteps the obvious 47 USC 230 defense, assuming without deciding that the publicity rights claim would fit into 230's IP exception.

Instead, the court rejects the injunction request on the merits of the publicity rights claim. This is based on the specific wording of Tennessee's publicity rights statute, which applies only to advertisements or solicitations. TheDirty made a commercially motivated editorial usage of Gauck's name and image. This type of usage gives courts fits, especially when the editorial publication isn't a traditional journalistic enterprise like a print newspaper. (See more about that problem in trademark law). Even so, there was no way to interpret TheDirty's "editorial content" as an advertisement or solicitation. The court says:

Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants marketed their site by emphasizing Plaintiff’s appearance on the site, used portions of the posts in teasers on other sites to draw more visitors, prominently displayed the posts regarding Plaintiff on the site, advertised Plaintiff’s appearance in connection with the sale of any of Defendants’ products, or charged higher premiums to advertisers for advertising space on the pages pertaining to Plaintiff.

The court rejects Gauck's generalized assertion that TheDirty's editorial content generates more ad money because it deals with celebrity gossip:

Plaintiff has suggested, at most, a currently unsubstantiated connection between the general use of celebrity personas on the site and an increase in traffic and/or advertising revenue.

I think that line of inquiry was irrelevant if we maintain the artificial distinction between editorial content and advertising. If the statute applies only to advertising, then it shouldn't matter if editorial content becomes more interesting because it addresses third party personalities. But the distinction truly is artificial--editorial content is its own form of marketing, i.e., more interesting editorial content naturally draws in more readers. The court didn't make a misstep here, but it could have been sharper or more succinct.

More coverage of TheDirty litigation:

* TheDirty Defeats Privacy Invasion Lawsuit--Dyer v. Dirty World
* thedirty.com's 47 USC 230 Defense Rejected on Motion to Dismiss--Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment

Posted by Eric at 11:32 AM | Derivative Liability , Publicity/Privacy Rights | TrackBack

August 04, 2011

Idea Submission Case Revived Against MySpace--Riggs v. MySpace

By Eric Goldman

Riggs v. MySpace, Inc., 2011 WL 3020543 (9th Cir. July 25, 2011)

Riggs created a popular MySpace page, only to have MySpace delete it twice. Not pleased by that turn of events, for years Riggs has been doggedly pursuing a lawsuit against MySpace pro se. Two years ago, the district court unceremoniously bounced her lawsuit relying, in part, on a novel reading of 47 USC 230(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit upheld the 230 ruling on appeal:

The district court properly dismissed Riggs’s negligence and gross negligence claims, arising from MySpace’s decisions to delete Riggs’s user profiles on its social networking website yet not delete other profiles Riggs alleged were created by celebrity imposters, because these claims were precluded by section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]ny activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under section 230.”).

Another Roommates.com citation for the defense. But, as I explain in my prior blog post, I think this should have been a 230(c)(2) dismissal, not a 230(c)(1) dismissal.

The court also rejected her claim for “promissory fraud breach of contract claim” (whatever that means) for lack of cognizable damages.

However, in an unexpected turn, the court revived her idea submission claim (an implied-in-fact contract breach) "because Riggs alleged in her First Amended Complaint at paragraph 120 that she told the News Corporation’s executive’s assistant that she wanted to “sell” her ideas before she disclosed them." That's a pretty weak allegation made to a person who may lack proper authority to promise anything, so the court seemed mighty generous to Riggs in reviving the case. Nevertheless, this is consistent with California's amorphous idea submission doctrines. They can be a nice end-run to survive motions to dismiss because, by definition, the parties are likely to dispute the facts in an implied-in-fact contract. Sadly, the Ninth Circuit recently expanded the idea submission doctrines in the Larry Montz case (mentioned here), so expect more weak idea submission claims to get further in litigation than they should.

Although the idea submission claim wasn't really a workaround to 47 USC 230, I think this case bears some parallels to Barnes v. Yahoo. In both cases, 47 USC 230 emphatically closed some doors to plaintiffs, but squishy state law doctrines opened other doors for the plaintiffs. It's a good reminder why 47 USC 230 works so well. Because it has so few exceptions, it ends cases cold. Fluffy doctrines like promissory estoppel and implied-in-fact contracts make it hard for judges to cleanly end cases early.

Eriq Gardner's story on the case.

Posted by Eric at 05:18 PM | Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Trade Secrets | TrackBack

July 18, 2011

The “Graduated Response” Deal: What if Users Had Been At the Table? (Co-Authored Post)

[Cross-posted to EFF's Deeplinks as well as here]

By Corynne McSherry and Eric Goldman

As was widely reported last week, several major internet access providers (including, very likely, yours) struck a deal last week with big content providers to help them police online infringement, educate allegedly infringing subscribers and, if subscribers resist such education, take various steps including restricting their internet access. We’ve now had a chance to peruse the lengthy “Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) behind this deal. Turns out, as is often observed, the devil is in the details – and they are devilish indeed.

Let’s start with the people taking credit: major content owners, service providers, and some government officials, principally New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. But guess who wasn’t invited to the party? The millions of subscribers who will be governed by the deal—the same subscribers who elect the politicians, buy the content owners’ goods and pay subscription fees to the internet access providers (which are likely to go up as administration costs are passed on – the UK’s graduated response system was estimated to cost about $40 per subscriber). Given that subscribers weren’t consulted, it’s probably not surprising that this deal is not in their interests.

Here’s some of the biggest problems with what resulted--and some ideas on what subscribers should demand of the system they’ll be paying for:

Who’s in Charge? The MOU calls for the creation of a new organization, called the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), to administrate the six-strikes system. CCI will be governed by a six-person executive committee comprised of representatives from content owners and internet access providers. Throwing a bone to subscribers, a three-person advisory board will include members “from relevant subject matter and consumer interest communities,” who will be given the chance to speak up whenever the executive committee asks. This possible advisory presence for subscribers is completely inadequate. Given they are the whole point of the MOU, subscribers deserve seats at the table as voting members of the executive committee.

“Mitigation” Measures and Independent Review: Internet access providers can punish accused subscribers by interfering with the subscribers’ connectivity, including by slowing transmission speeds, temporarily restricting web access for “some reasonable period of time,” and conditioning web access on completing a “meaningful copyright education program.” These mitigation measures can be imposed solely on the basis of the content owners’ assertions, without a judge ever determining that the subscriber did anything wrong.

Internet access has become an essential service in the digital age. Thus, just as we restrict the power of utilities to turn off services to their customers, we should not allow content owners to cause internet access providers to degrade or suspend their services without adequate due process.

The MOU does create a process designed to protect subscribers from unfounded accusations and punishment, but it’s hardly due process. Consider some of the procedural protections that subscribers might have sought if they had been at the bargaining table:

* The burden should be on the content owners to establish infringement, not on the subscribers to disprove infringement. The Internet access providers will treat the content owners’ notices of infringement as presumptively accurate--obligating subscribers to defend against the accusations, and in several places requiring subscribers to produce evidence “credibly demonstrating” their innocence. This burden-shift violates our traditional procedural due process norms and is based on the presumed reliability of infringement-detection systems that subscribers haven't vetted and to which they cannot object. (The content owners’ systems will be reviewed by “impartial technical experts,” but the experts’ work will be confidential). Without subscribers being able to satisfy themselves that the notification systems are so reliable that they warrant a burden-shift, content owners should have to prove the merits of their complaints before internet access providers take any punitive action against subscribers.

* Subscribers should be able to assert the full range of defenses to copyright infringement. A subscriber who protests an infringement notice may assert only six pre-defined defenses, even though there are many other possible defenses available in a copyright litigation. And even the six enumerated defenses are incomplete. For example, the “public domain” defense applies only if the work was created before 1923--even though works created after 1923 can enter the public domain in a variety of ways.

* Content owners should be accountable if they submit incorrect infringement notices. A subscriber who successfully challenges an infringement notice gets a refund of the $35 review fee, but the MOU doesn’t spell out any adverse consequences for the content owner that make the mistake – or even making repeated mistakes. Content owners should be on the hook if they overclaim copyright infringement.

* Subscribers should have adequate time to prepare a defense. The MOU gives subscribers only 10 business days to challenge a notice or their challenge rights are waived (a subscriber might get an extra 10 business days "for substantial good cause"). This period isn’t enough time for most subscribers to research and write a proper defense. Subscribers should get adequate time to defend themselves.

* There should be adequate assurances that the reviewers are neutral. The MOU requires that reviewers must be lawyers and specifies that the CCI will train the reviews in “prevailing legal principles” of copyright law – an odd standard given the complexity of, and jurisdictional differences in, copyright law. We’re especially interested in the identity of these lawyers, and why they are willing to review cases for less than $35 each (assuming the CCI keeps some of the $35 review fee for itself). Perhaps there will be a ready supply of lawyer-reviewers who are truly independent. Given the low financial incentives, another possibility is that the reviewers will be lawyers tied—financially or ideologically—to the content owner community. To ensure that the reviewers remain truly neutral, reviewer resumes should be made public, and checks-and-balances should be built into the reviewer selection process to ensure that the deck isn’t stacked against subscribers from day 1.

Education or Propaganda? The MOU repeatedly emphasizes subscriber education as one of its main goals. Unfortunately, this education won’t offer a very balanced view of copyright, at least if the current version of the CCI website is any indication. That website currently is full of scare-mongering rhetoric decrying the ill effects of so-called “content theft” and stressing the security risks of P2P. As the site is further developed, the executive committee should reject the rhetoric and look instead to the numerous online resources that provide a balanced and nuanced view of copyright law, helping to inform subscribers about their rights as well as their responsibilities when it comes to creative works.

Transparency: The MOU contemplates ongoing evaluation of the system through a variety of reports. That seems like a good idea, but neither subscribers nor the general public get to see or comment on those reports. Similarly, the statement of “prevailing legal principles” used to instruct reviewers also should be made public so that subscribers know how reviewers are interpreting U.S. copyright law. Simply put, if subscribers are supposed to treat the system as credible, they need enough information to determine that the system actually is credible.

Conclusion: This MOU has been in development for years, and we imagine the parties will be reluctant to revisit it. But it has yet to be implemented, which means there’s still time for the parties (and their friends in government) and to address the deficiencies of their proposal from perspective of the subscribers who’ll be paying for it. This deal is never going to be good for subscribers (nor for the artists who won’t see one more red cent as a result of it) -- but it sure could be better.

Posted by Eric at 01:13 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 15, 2011

17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices--Amaretto v. Ozimals

By Eric Goldman

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., 2011 WL 2690437 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011).

I generally like furry critters, but I'm beginning to hate the virtual horses and virtual bunnies for their deleterious effect on Internet law. A prior ruling in this case held that Amaretto (the horses) couldn't claim 17 USC 512(f) when Ozimals (the bunnies) sent takedown notices to Second Life that Second Life didn't act upon. Now, in this ruling, the court says that 17 USC 512(f) preempts all state law claims based on the takedown notices, agreeing with language in the Diebold and Lenz 512(f) cases.

I must confess that copyright preemption baffles me generally. Consistent with that, I couldn't tell if this ruling is relying on statutory preemption (17 USC 301), conflict preemption or field preemption. It might just be my shaky reading skills, but the opinion seemed to imply it was all three simultaneously.

There is a key difference between this case and the Diebold/Lenz cases, however. In those cases, the court said 512(f) was a viable claim. Here, the court has already said 512(f) isn't viable for Amaretto. So Amaretto rightly pointed out that this ruling would leave Amaretto remediless. The court expressly acknowledges this result, saying: yup, that's exactly what federal preemption means.

Amaretto also cited to the recent Rock River ruling, which indicated that 512(f) didn't preempt a tortious interference case. The court distinguishes the Rock River case by saying that case did not involve a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, so the notice never fell within 512(f)'s ambit in the first place and thus 512(f)'s preemption wasn't triggered. The court unfortunately doesn't reference or distinguish Smith v. Summit Entertainment, which survived various state law claims in addition to a 512(f) claim. I don't remember a preemption challenge in that case, but that's perhaps because the case was really about trademarks, not copyrights.

All this leaves me more confused than before. If you're looking for a good but challenging paper topic, the preemptive effect of 17 USC 512(f) looks worth exploring. It also reinforces that 512(f) is a limited solution that may be miscalibrated for its supposed purposes of helping to suppress bogus copyright takedown notices.

Prior blog posts on this case:

* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn't Actionable Unless There's an Actual Takedown--Amaretto v. Ozimals (April 2011)
* Second Life Gets Out of Dispute Between Virtual Bunnies & Virtual Horses (Jan. 2011)
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner's Takedown Notices--Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals (Jan. 2011)

Posted by Eric at 07:22 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 11, 2011

Comments on NY Highest Court Ruling on 47 USC 230--Shiamili v. Real Estate Group [Catch up post]

By Eric Goldman

Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York, Inc., 2011 WL 2313818 (N.Y. App Ct. June 14, 2011). My blog post on the intermediate appellate ruling.

[I was traveling in mid-June and a few interesting rulings fell through the cracks. This is a catch-up post.]

Shiamili founded Ardor, which competes with the Real Estate Group in the apartment rental brokerage business. A pseudonymous user posted a comment to REG's blog allegedly defaming Shiamili. The blog administrator elevated the comment into a full blog post by republishing it with some introductory remarks. This sparked further allegedly defamatory comments to the post. The blog administrator allegedly also responded to one of those comments to try to elicit further details about Shiamili's deficiencies.

Based on this recitation, this looks like an easy 47 USC 230 dismissal. The plaintiffs made it seem even easier by alleging the defendants' tortious conduct was to "administer and choose content for" the blog. Administering and choosing UGC is exactly what 47 USC 230 protects, so this was a relatively uninspired effort to bypass the immunity.

The court summarizes the state of play in 47 USC 230 jurisprudence and distills a conclusion:

Today, we follow what may fairly be called the national consensus...and read section 230 as generally immunizing internet service providers from liability for third-party content wherever such liability depends on characterizing the provider as a 'publisher or speaker' of objectionable material

I'm not sure how this broad philosophy statement advances the ball beyond the statute's plain text, and the last 3 words are odd. The immunity applies irrespective of whether or not "objectionable" material is involved. The court does explain that the immunity applies equally to both neutral and selective publishers. The court punts on the Roommates.com's discussion about "development," saying that the plaintiff loses even under the more plaintiff-friendly reading. (Count this opinion as yet another citation of Roommates.com for the defense). The court says:

1) "Creating an open forum for third-parties to post content -- including negative commentary -- is at the core of what section 230 protects"
2) "there is no allegation that the defamatory comments were posted in response to any specific invitation for users to bash Shiamili or Ardor"
3) elevating the comment to its own blog post didn't make the blogger a content provider of the comment's content. The court doesn't cite the email forwarding cases, but this ruling is completely consistent with them (see, e.g., Phan v. Pham).

The court distinguishes Roommates.com and Accusearch because the site did not require users to do anything illegal.

Finally, the court says the blogger is the content provider (and thus not insulated by 47 USC 230) for his introductory remarks, the blog post title and an accompanying drawing, but those three elements weren't defamatory as a matter of law.

There was a surprisingly strong dissent (and a 4-3 split among the judges), concluding that "an interpretation that immunizes a business's complicity in defaming a direct competitor takes us so far afield from the purpose of the CDA as to make it unrecognizable." This is at least the second time a state's highest court has split 4-3 on a 230 case--the old Doe v. AOL case in Florida is the other that comes to mind. Perhaps this difficulty agreeing on 47 USC 230's application makes sense for state courts that don't see 47 USC 230 cases regularly and might be surprised by the counter-intuitive breadth of Congress' immunity.

Posted by Eric at 08:55 AM | Derivative Liability | TrackBack

July 05, 2011

"Can IP Be Protected in the Internet Age?" Panel Recap from Russian Economic Development Conference

By Eric Goldman

In June, I attended the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum ("SPIEF"), organized by the Russian government's Ministry of Economic Development. This was a major event drawing thousands of participants to St. Petersburg, including the heads of state from Russia, China and several other major countries. The conference was designed to advance Russia's economic development, which seems to focus on natural resource extraction from Siberia. However, the conference included a few Internet-related panels, and conceptually they fit nicely with the theme of how Russia can develop its economy.

I participated on a panel entitled "Can IP Be Protected in the Internet Age?" Right away, I trust many of you find the titling odd. This is the kind of panel we had in the United States in 1996 and 1997. I can't imagine that anyone in the United States would organize a panel seriously asking that question in 2011. But the question seemed oddly appropriate given Russia's awkward status as a developed nation that bears some commonalities with the economies of the developing world.

Putting the titling aside, this was easily one of the most bizarre panels I've ever been on. The panel consisted of SIXTEEN presenters for a 75 MINUTE panel (one didn't show, so 15 actually spoke). Yes, you read that right. Doing the math, each speaker was allocated a little over 4 minutes (not surprisingly, some ran over). I should add that the Russian government paid thousands of dollars to cover my travel expenses so I could participate in this panel, making this a jaw-droppingly high per-hour rate for my time!

They sat the 16 panelists around a round table. You can see the room set-up in this photo. As you can see, it was a tight fit around the table. You can also see the monitors overhead and the videocameras pointed at the table; so audience members who couldn't see the speaker (for example, because they sat behind the speaker) could watch on the overhead monitor. At the peak, there may have been about 60 people in the audience (although I'm not sure how many of those were staff members). In the back left is the translator booth--about half the speakers spoke in English; the other half in Russian. One final thing to note is that everyone you see in the photo was an SPIEF staffer, meaning that the ratio between staffers and panelists approached 1:1. You've heard the stereotypes about Russian efficiency; this panel seemed to exemplify it.

Because there were too many panelists for the time allotted, not surprisingly the panel devolved into a series of short position statements not dissimilar to the "interaction" at an OECD workshop or other international forum. Some of the later speakers commented on the remarks of earlier speakers, but there was no audience Q&A or panelist back-and-forth. The panel moderator was Igor Drozdov, Director for Law and Legal Matters, Skolkovo Foundation, and he had the unenviable task of herding too many cats in too little time.

I'm not exactly sure why the panel was organized as it was, but it turns out, this event became another iteration in the dialogue between the Russian and United States governments over Russian copyright law. Because Russia's economy is still developing, Russia isn't faithfully toeing the US line on draconian copyright laws. Techdirt does a nice job summarizing some of the recent considerations for Russian copyright reform--something about baking Creative Commons into the copyright statute, which doesn't really make sense but reflects the theory that not every copyright owner needs nuclear-grade copyright rights. It's the kind of discussion we could never have in Congress because US copyright law is exclusively on a one-way ratchet to become more draconian. The US government isn't responding to Russia's flirtation with weaker copyright laws with smiles, and some of that tete-a-tete spilled over to this panel.

I'm going to relay my notes from the panel, but my usual caveats apply--these are my impressions of the discussion, not faithful transcriptions, so you should double-check before quoting or relying on my summary. In this case, capturing the discussion was even more difficult because I was working on very little sleep and relying on the English translations for the Russian speakers, and the translators cut out during a few speakers. If you want to watch the panel yourself and draw your own conclusion, go here. You can also read the organizers' official summary, which doesn't really capture the dynamics. You can also see the organizers' pull quotes.

Miriam Sapiro, US Deputy Trade Representative, started the discussion. Her bio and a Q&A where she lists her work on ACTA as her favorite moment--uh oh. Her remarks were what you would expect from a US trade rep. She rattled off the typical content owner talking points: IP theft is no less illegal than the theft of tangible property; IP protection is essential in the Internet era; legislation should provide for secondary infringement when service providers have the object of promoting infringement.

She tossed out a few Russia-specific quips, including:

* a concern about mandatory licensing of content to a monopolist--presumably a warning that Russia should not officially embrace Spotify as a private compulsory license;
* an expectation of vigorous government enforcement against Internet infringement, including cyber-lockers and BiTorrent.
* advocacy that Russia should join the WTO--and ACTA.

Svetlana Mironyuk, Editor-in-Chief, RIA Novosti. She expressed frustration with the work required to police their rights against UGC, which she says requires a team of 20 lawyers. They brought only 1 case, which they won, but she said the victory doesn't solve the whack-a-mole problem, and enforcement actions aren't good public relations.

Tom Rubin, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property Strategy, Microsoft Corporation. Tom offered up the DMCA online safe harbor as a good example of how rightsowners' and technologists' interests can be balanced. It has promoted vibrant online innovation, helped proliferate legitimate commercial platforms, and led to voluntary cooperation between content owners and technology platforms that supplement the legal rules. He said there is a problem with rogue websites that have no legitimate purpose--these should be easy for content owners to remove. Creative Commons and other permissive licensing schemes are a complement to copyright law, not a substitute.

Oliver Metzger, Senior Copyright Product Counsel, Google Inc. IP enforcement works well when there is a shared responsibility between IP owners and websites. IP owners are in the best position to know when there is an infringement. We should not require websites to monitor UGC. Monitoring is hard for big companies and a crushing obligation for small ones. He pointed to Content ID as an example of a voluntary IP enforcement mechanism that YouTube has adopted.

Eric Goldman, Associate Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law. My remarks: Copyright protection is a good thing. Unfortunately, this leads to the mistaken assumption that more copyright protection is better.

In the Silicon Valley, much of the innovation takes place in the "unregulated spaces," i.e., the cracks in the regulatory structure. (I know many people have advanced this argument, but I acknowledge Mark Lemley's recent evangelism of this point). Regulation often creates barriers to entry, in many cases at the request of incumbent players.

In contrast, expressly creating unregulated spaces, through safe harbors and immunities, can spur entrepreneurship around those safe spaces. For example, the 17 USC 512 notice-and-takedown scheme. Service providers still feel the takedown process is onerous, but at least they know the rules of engagement and can find profitable ways to implement it, which has led to UGC success stories like YouTube.

From the perspective of content creators, there's an emerging recognition that copyright isn't their only solution. Information asymmetries are unstable on the Internet (an application of the idiom that "information wants to be free"), which reflects the nature of information as non-rivalrous. Many content creators are embracing the instability of information asymmetries by treating non-rivarlous content as marketing for rivalrous goods and services. As just one example, bands voluntarily post recordings of their live performances as marketing for future live performances.

Ivan Zasursky, Head of New Media and Communications Theory, Faculty of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University. I didn't get any notes from him.

Andrei Loginov, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian Government in the State Duma. I'm not sure what his title means, but he spoke from a librarian's perspective. He noted that content creators' interests aren't always commercial, and increased commercialization of Internet content can increase piracy.

Yuri Lubimov, Deputy Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation. The traditional copyright owner's rhetoric is that we should do more to bust pirates. He thinks we should consider different perspectives. Paper-based rules are increasingly outdated. There is a decrease in the circulation of traditional media, and TV content is eroding in quality. We may not want to enforce existing rules; instead, we should anticipate when copyright rules will fall apart by finding new ways to monetize content in new technological environments. We can't protect content using the same means as we used to protect paper-based content. If we don't develop new methods to monetize content, then the old system will fail and a new system won't come online.

Kevin Lawric, President, Sony Europe and Africa. He acknowledged that rightowners had made bad decisions for years. [We all know this is true, but it's still refreshing to hear from a music exec.] He pointed to Spotify as a success story that was aided by government nudging. He gave the example of Sweden and Pirate Bay. The government pressured the illegitimate sites, and the legitimate services (Spotify) got licenses.

Ekaterina Chukovskaya, Secretary, Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation. Her talk seemed especially interesting but it was hard to tell with the translation. She started out by noting that IP owners have different perspectives. They understand the best monetization model for them, and we should give authors the right to do what they want, including sometimes not taking the full package of copyrights. [I believe this is part of the idea of baking Creative Commons into the statute.]

She also appeared to be interested in revitalizing formalities. She indicated there was thought about a digital registration process that libraries could implement. The author could register his/her interest; but if not, the author lets it go.

[At this point we had gone about 70 minutes of the 75 minute panel and we still had 5 speakers left. For reasons that weren't entirely clear, Miriam Sapiro said she had to leave. There was no graceful way for her to leave. She could have just left, but there were Russian government officials around the table and they might have perceived her departure as US government disinterest in the discussion. At the same time, announcing her departure consumed more time from speakers who hadn't been given their chance. She decided to do the latter and shared a few parting words:]

Miriam Sapiro (again). There is consensus around the table that (1) protection of IP is a universal right, (2) rightsowners, and not the government, should make the decision what to do with their rights. [In fact, I don't think there was any consensus around the table. The Russian government representatives were saying some pretty funky things that we'd never hear a US government official say in his/her official capacity.]

Benoit Ginisty, Director General, International Federation of Film Producers' Associations. "Free" isn't a sustainable business model, and it disturbs concepts of right and wrong. Their content is a value driver for ISPs.

Alexander Maslov, State Secretary, Deputy Minister of Telecommunications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. They surveyed Russian users. 80% will support pirated content despite its dangers, but 83% don't object to advertising, and many will pay if they can get timely access to content (no windowing). So there's no reason to be pessimistic if lawmakers adapt their laws and IP owners adapt their business models.

Tim Renner, Managing Director, Motor Entertainment GmbH. Intellectual property rights on the Internet are illusory. All control is lost. We need to ramp up legal options like Spotify. There will always be geographic locations where pirates can find a safe haven, so it's not possible to stop them.

Peter Jenner, Producer, Music Manager, ex-Manager of Pink Floyd and The Clash, Visiting Professor in Music and Entertainment Industry Economics. We need to find business models that are consistent with consumer behavior. We need to work with consumers, not against them. Consumers have different levels of enthusiasm for content, so content owners need to be more subtle with their pricing. We can compete with "free" by making content "feel like free," such as a flat tax paid through IAPs. He asked where the money to Spotify is going? It's not going to the artists. If consumers don't feel like the money is going to the right people, they are less willing to pay. [I'd like to see some social science backing that assertion up.] He also advocated for developing content registries as a formality.

Artemy Troitsky, Russian rock journalist and music critic. Talented artists and scientists will never stop, but we need to remove intermediate publishers from the system and we need to overcome greed. [The translation was garbled so I didn't catch what he was saying at the end, but something in his conclusion made the crowd go wild--his impassioned remarks produced a rousing ovation from an otherwise completely passive audience. Maybe the audience was just happy to reach the end of a frenetic and completely non-interactive panel before dark.]

After the conference, I did some tourism around St. Petersburg. I will post a comprehensive recap of that to my personal blog. In the interim, you can see my photo gallery.

Posted by Eric at 01:05 PM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 28, 2011

"Hot Topics in UGC Liability" Talk Slides

By Eric Goldman

Earlier this month, Internet law superstar Ian Ballon and I spoke for about 90 minutes on hot topics in Internet law. Watch the video by downloading or streaming (item #47) it.

I spoke about recent legal developments related to user-generated content. My talk slides.

In particular, the fourth slide is completely new. It's my initial attempt to catalog some of the abusive takedown practices I'm seeing. If you have thoughts about abuses I should add to the list, please let me know. I think it's important to start cataloging these practices for two reasons. First, should anyone propose mucking with the 230/512 allocation of responsibilities, it may be helpful to plop on the table some proposed defense-oriented statutory fixes to these bad practices rather than just respond to the maximalists' wish list. Second, with so much focus on whether or not there are abusive lawsuits (see, e.g., the farcical DOC report on trademark bullying), it seems useful to catalog some of the bad dispositions we're seeing without the dispute getting into court so that policy-makers can understand the true scope of the issues.

I'm also aggregating lawsuits where affected content publishers have sued the senders of abusive takedown practices. I feel like there's been an uptick of this litigation in the past year or so. If you've seen any lawsuits on that front I haven't covered, please let me know.

Posted by Eric at 05:42 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 27, 2011

Another Ripoff Report Win--A-1 Technology v. Magedson

By Eric Goldman

[Note: I have a thick blogging queue of cases to tackle, so if I haven't gotten to your recent favorites yet, a post may still be coming.]

A-1 Technology, Inc. v. Magedson, 150033/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 22, 2011)

After a while, the Ripoff Report cases all start blurring together. The plaintiffs try the same tired arguments, the courts reject them as they should, and we all experience a little deja vu. This case involves 2 postings to Ripoff Report (from 2006 and 2009) that were allegedly defamatory of a New York company. The Ripoff Report defended on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, the statute of limitations (1 year for defamation cases in NY) and 47 USC 230.

The 230 discussion is appropriately efficient. The court cites the recent Shiamili ruling (in my queue to blog) for the proposition that 47 USC 230 bars defamation actions "even when the website provider exercises traditional editorial control, including the reposting of the comments of third-parties and providing headings, subheadings and illustrations." The court also rejects the 47 USC 230 immunity would change if Ripoff Report allegedly charged for removing posts.

The court also dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, following the general rule that simply publishing defamatory material online doesn't automatically confer jurisdiction in the plaintiff's home court. Finally, the court also dismisses any claim for the 2006 post based on the statute of limitations plus the single publication rule as articulated in Firth v. State, an early New York case interpreting the single-publication rule online.

Posted by Eric at 04:59 PM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 07, 2011

Site Moderators Weren't Agents of the Site--Cornelius v. BodyBuilding.com

By Eric Goldman

Cornelius v. BodyBuilding.com, LLC, 2011 WL 2160358 (D. Idaho June 1, 2011)

This case involves a nutritional supplement called Syntrax, which is available for sale on an e-commerce site BodyBuilding.com. The site supports users comments and message boards and deploys user-moderators to oversee the conversations. Moderators "may, among other things, edit and delete posts, move threads, and ban forum users for violations of the forum’s terms and conditions." Moderators self-nominate but are elected by the community. Moderators don't get paid, but they get a discount for onsite purchases and a free trip to Boise.

This ruling involves three posts made by user "deserusan" and one by "INGENIUM" that made critical remarks about Syntrax. A Syntrax competitor, Gaspari, later hired deserusan as a part-time CSR, and deserusan disclosed that employment status in his onsite signature block. However, perhaps unexpectedly, when deserusan updated his signature block, the update automatically propagated to all of deserusan's old posts, thus making it appear that deserusan was bashing Syntrax as an official employee of a competitor. Meanwhile, INGENIUM subsequently became an onsite moderator, so his legacy posts (including the one at issue) got the elevated visibility given to posts by moderators, even though it was written when INGENIUM wasn't a moderator.

Syntrax initially sued more than 15 defendants over these posts. The case has generated a number of interesting and confused rulings along the way, and we've blogged it three times before:

* "Website Privacy Policy Supports Pseudonymous Poster's Expectation of Privacy -- Cornelius v. Deluca"
* "Troubling Ruling About 47 USC 230 and Moderators--Cornelius v. DeLuca" (which included the classic analysis of whether calling someone a "Cornholio" is defamatory)
* "Online Retailer Isn't Liable for User Comments--Cornelius v. DeLuca"

Gaspari and BodyBuilding.com are the only defendants remaining, and in this ruling, the court grants both summary judgment.

Regarding Gaspari's liability, deserusan had made the offending posts before becoming an employee, but the court had previously ruled that it could be liable if "Plaintiffs could prove that Gaspari intentionally and unreasonably failed to remove the allegedly defamatory posts after notice and opportunity to do so." The court concludes that Gaspari lacked adequate knowledge. It didn't know about the posts when hiring deserusan, it didn't know he changed his signature block or that doing so would affect old posts, and it didn't control the posts. Also, similar to Ripoff Report, BodyBuilding.com restricted its authors' ability to delete their old posts.

[In our exchange about this post in draft mode, Venkat wondered about the legal test the court used here. This is the standard legal test for, say, a business that leaves a defamatory comment posted on the bathroom wall. I don't know if the test makes sense in the context of an employer reviewing a new employee's old online activities, but the court gets to the right place either way.]

Regarding BodyBuilding.com's liability for the remaining claim of Lanham Act unfair competition, the plaintiff contends that "Bodybuilding.com endorsed or “adopted” INGENIUM’s statement – and therefore became responsible for it – when it failed to remove the post after INGENIUM became a moderator." This should have been an easy 47 USC 230 dismissal--even if the post was by a moderator, the website is never liable for it--but the court had previously ruled otherwise. This led to an inquiry whether the moderator was the website's agent.

The court concludes that moderators weren't acting within any agency scope when posting online, and nothing created apparent authority for those posts. Separately, the court says there may not be any damages because it's unclear if anyone saw the post during INGENIUM's time as a moderator.

With all of the facts on the table, it's easy to see why this case took so many rulings to resolve. Users changed their status to employees/moderators, which in turn changed how their posts were presented. It takes a little while to unpeel these layers. On the other hand, this shows why 47 USC 230 is so helpful. If the court had taken the position all along that a moderator's post was third party content, the case would have been tossed a long time ago, and the parties would have saved a lot of time and money.

The court reached a good place in declining to hold that agency law made the site responsible for its moderator's post. However, even if 47 USC 230 didn't apply, the entire inquiry was flawed because independent user-moderators should almost never be considered agents of the site, and therefore courts should screen out agency arguments much earlier in the process. We don't get too many agency arguments as bypasses to 47 USC 230, but this case leaves plaintiffs with some reason to explore those doctrinal interstices.

Rebecca is also covering this suit.

Posted by Eric at 09:28 AM | Derivative Liability , E-Commerce , Marketing | TrackBack

June 04, 2011

TheDirty Defeats Privacy Invasion Lawsuit--Dyer v. Dirty World

By Eric Goldman

Dyer v. Dirty World LLC, 2011 WL 2173900 (D. Ariz. June 2, 2011). The summary judgment motion, Dyer's opposition and thedirty's reply.

An ex-boyfriend submitted to thedirty.com 2 photos of Dyer in a bikini and a comment that Dyer gave him and a buddy an STD. Nik of thedirty posted, in response to his standard "Would You?" question, "No it looks like she just had a baby, and if a girl is willing to take 2 guys on then I suggest you use a rubber." Dyer sued thedirty for public disclosure of private facts and false light. For reasons that aren't explained, Dyer didn't sue for copyright infringement for the republished photos (although I vaguely remember these may be self-portraits) or defamation (even though the complaint repeatedly alleges that the statements are false); nor does it seem that she sued the ex-boyfriend either.

Another oddity: the final posting on thedirty had three disparate information pieces--the photos, the submitted comments, and Nik's comments--but the court appears only to evaluate Nik's comments, which are characteristically acerbic but comparatively innocuous. Nik only advanced two statements: an opinion about Dyer's looks and a recommendation for safe sex practices when engaging multiple sex partners. As a result, the court says that Nik didn't make any statements of fact. The court concludes "the Court finds that the general tenor of Defendant’s website makes clear that the two statements at issue represent Mr. Ritchie’s personal viewpoint, rather than an assertion of fact."

However, the court doesn't explain why it effectively ignores thedirty's republication of the photos and the submitted comments. In FN2, the court says it's not relying on 47 USC 230, but if that were really true, it seems that the court should have considered all three information pieces, not just Nik's own words. So it appears that this is a 47 USC 230 case where the court denies it's relying on 47 USC 230.

Prior coverage of a different thedirty case: "thedirty.com's 47 USC 230 Defense Rejected on Motion to Dismiss--Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment"

Posted by Eric at 09:43 AM | Derivative Liability , Publicity/Privacy Rights | TrackBack

June 02, 2011

Ripoff Report Gets Another Big 47 USC 230 Win--Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric

By Eric Goldman

Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2011)

The AEI Ruling

Keeping alive its truly remarkable winning streak, Ripoff Report got yet another decisive 47 USC 230 victory. This challenge came from Asia Economic Institute (AEI), suing over 6 posts to Ripoff Report from former AEI employees complaining about the work environment. The case raised some eyebrows last summer when the judge gave AEI a chance to plead a RICO claim. That ruling got some plaintiffs excited that a conspiracy theory might finally expose Ripoff Report to liability. No matter, as it turns out, because AEI still lost on summary judgment.

General Applicability of Section 230

The court accepted that the 6 posts in question all originated with the users. Ripoff Report gives some "generic and stylistic" writing guidance to users, such as an ALL CAPS instruction not to use ALL CAPS. (Ironic, I know). With respect to these formatting instructions, the court says:

these statements can not amount to encouragement, solicitation, or instruction to say anything in particular that might warrant labeling Defendants as “information content providers.”

Ripoff Report also does some things to enhance the SEO of user posts, and the court treats these visibility-enhancing efforts as irrelevant to a Section 230 analysis:

Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority that increasing the prominence of a page in internet searches amounts to “creation or development of information” that would render Defendants “information content providers” under the CDA. The very purpose of consumer reports such as the Ripoff Report website is to provide accessibility to the public on a grand scale. Increasing the visibility of a statement is not tantamount to altering its message....At best, increasing the visibility of a website in internet searches amounts to “enhancement by implication,” which is insufficient to remove Defendants from the ambit of the CDA.

This is yet another court opinion citing Roommates.com for the defense.

I think the court's key line comes immediately after this:

Absent a changing of the disputed reports’ substantive content that is visible to consumers, liability cannot be found.

This sentence is so simple and elegant, yet the concept frustrates plaintiffs to no end. Simply put, if content originates with a third party and the defendant doesn't substantively change its meaning, Section 230 applies--FULL STOP. All of the plaintiffs' kvetching about endorsing or ratifying third party content is getting plaintiffs nowhere. Once the court accepted that the reports came from third parties and that ROR employees didn't substantively modify the contents, there was nothing left to discuss. Section 230 applies. Case over.

The plaintiffs also tried the now-tired argument that Ripoff Report creates report titles by combining user content and Ripoff Report content. The court doesn't want to hear about this "circumvention" of the immunity either:

Users thus know precisely how the titles of their submissions will appear before posting. Defendants need not present users with a completely blank slate from which to create their reports in order to be protected by the CDA

Having determined that Ripoff Report qualifies for Section 230, the immunity wipes out a long list of claims:

(3) unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.;(4) defamation; (5) defamation per se; (6) false light; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (8) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (9) negligent interference with economic relations; and (10) injunction.

The immunity for the 17200 UCL claim is particularly interesting. This is similar to the Levitt v. Yelp ruling, where the plaintiffs weren't able to bypass Section 230 by arguing that Yelp's UGC management practices mooted 230. This court also rejects the 17200 claim on standing grounds and the fraud/deceit claims for a variety of reasons.

Request for More Discovery

The court also denies the plaintiffs' request for further discovery. Among other things, the plaintiffs wanted to look for evidence that the HTML code/metatags aren't generated automatically. The court says that information wouldn't matter because it would just show that Ripoff Report wanted better search engine indexing, plus "Plaintiffs conceded that the HTML code and meta tags of the reports devoted to them were created automatically."

Anti-SLAPP Motion

The court denied Ripoff Report's anti-SLAPP motion to strike. This is the second time the court did so; the first time was a broader anti-SLAPP motion denied in April 2010. This was a narrower anti-SLAPP attempt, but it still failed.

Response to the Ruling

Lisa Borodkin, AEI's counsel, was kind enough to send me a statement, including this assessment:

Ripoff Report also changed several of its practices during the pendency of this litigation. Ripoff Report began informing telephone callers that their calls would be recorded and corrected the description of the Corporate Advocacy Program. Ripoff Report launched an arbitration program which is upfront about disclosing that Ripoff Report will redact names from Ripoff Reports for parties that prevail in arbitration.

The VIP Arbitration Program

This ruling shows that plaintiffs are running out of creative ways to sue Ripoff Report. They have tried just about every legal trick imaginable, and nothing has worked. Eventually, unhappy vendors will abandon frontal litigation assaults on Ripoff Report and aggressively pursue alternative ways to get the outcomes they desire.

One logical alternative is Ripoff Report's relatively new arbitration process, called the “VIP Arbitration Program.” The process lets unhappy vendors proceed to an arbitration service designated by Ripoff Report. If the complainant wins the arbitration, Ripoff Report will redact the complainant's name from the report. This may not be a perfect solution to a problematic report, but it's more useful than a 47 USC 230-preempted lawsuit against Ripoff Report.

Default Judgments and Google Search Results

Meanwhile, a few months ago, a Texas lawyer, Kenton Hutcherson, wrote at Search Engine Land about another way to redress a problematic report. With the seductive title of "How To Remove Ripoff Reports From Google – Not Just Bury Them," the article tells readers exactly what they desperately want to know--how to flush a bad report out of Google's index.

The answer isn't rocket science, and it takes advantage of Google's apparent pliability when presented with a court order. The article advocates that aggrieved parties sue the person who posted the report. Although the article doesn't say this explicitly, the article implies that defendants may quickly agree a default or stipulated judgment. The plaintiff can then present the court order to Google and anticipate that Google will honor it.

I found this article problematic for several reasons:

1) The author initially failed to mention that he had previously sued Ripoff Report--and lost. Do you think this past litigation experience is relevant to assessing the author's perspectives? I do. One way of reading the article is that the author initially planned to drum up some business suing ROR, failed to show the legal merits of that option, and is now cultivating a replacement business line.

You'll see that the article now contains the following disclosure:

Editors Postscript: For the purposes of full disclosure, Kenton J. Hutcherson has served as lead counsel in three lawsuits against Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the company that manages Ripoff Report.

That postscript was added in response to my inquiries to Search Engine Land over the past month.

2) The author mentions Ripoff Report's arbitration program but doesn't indicate that it may be less expensive than the path he recommends--and more effective too (success in arbitration would redact the problematic content everywhere, not just from Google). Omitting that crucial piece of pricing information (while downplaying the cost of litigation) provides further support for a hypothesis that the article is selling a new business line.

3) The article advocates taking advantage of Google's apparently lax responses to court orders. Perhaps that's a legitimate use of the court system, although it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about such efforts. Meanwhile, this article is a good cautionary tale to Google--and all other service providers--that default and stipulated judgments are a potential source of abusive takedowns requests, especially when they don't result from a proper substantive adjudication by the court. (As we know, for this reason, Ripoff Report sometimes stands up to default judgments; see the Blockowicz case).

I am a longtime regular reader of Search Engine Land, so I raised my concerns about this article directly to Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land. On the point of Search Engine Land authors making adequate disclosures, Danny responded:

Going forward, we're drafting up a disclosure statement that will be added to our contributor guidelines, and our contributors will get a reminder of this in the next monthly newsletter that goes out to them. We'll be asking that they use common sense in disclosing any relevant relationships or background within their articles, as it makes sense within a story (say if they write about a client, they should disclose that) or provide general disclosure as part of their bio (if they are part of a company that might have bearing on what they've written, for example).

As you can see, this translated into the editor's postscript now in the article. At the same time, Danny pointed out:

The disclosure wouldn't have made you think he was somehow less biased against Ripoff Report (it was pretty obvious he wasn't a fan). The disclosure wouldn't have altered the advice he wrote, in terms of making what he was recommending more or less attractive -- nor would it have impacted the alternatives he wrote.

Perhaps this is true, but I find that litigation counsel tend to become deeply entrenched in the viewpoints they advocated, and so I find that knowing that background often helps me contextualize subsequent remarks from them.

Posted by Eric at 09:33 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

June 01, 2011

Updates on DoctoredReviews.com and Medical Justice

By Eric Goldman

You may recall our April launch of DoctoredReviews.com, a website explaining why Medical Justice's form agreement, the "Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy," was a bad deal for doctors, patients and review websites. See a list of the media coverage on the site's launch.

Since then, there have been three developments of interest.

First, Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica covered his experiences with a dentist who asked him to sign the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy and what happened when he balked at signing (predictably, there was no negotiation, and he was booted from the office). The entire article is a great read, but this line especially caught my eye: "we began to wonder if Medical Justice was taking advantage of medical professionals' lack of sophistication about the law." Watching the doctor community's response to our site launch, I had been wondering the same thing. Doctors and other healthcare professionals are very scared of the combination of privacy laws and unfettered consumer reviews; and Medical Justice has a several year headstart in (mis?)educating them about the law. It's clear that our advocacy site alone isn't enough to do the necessary counter-education.

Timothy also hammers on how Medical Justice has been backpedaling about the efficacy of the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy. Medical Justice publicly claims that the agreement is principally useful for dealing with reviews from the doctors' competitors or ex-employees or other fraudsters. This is a baffling argument because (as Timothy points out) those folks undoubtedly haven't signed the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy, so doctors can neither assert a breach of the agreement nor the assigned copyrights in those reviews. (And asserting copyright to the review websites could lead to 512(f) claims). There is a massive logic disconnect between the purported goals of the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy and the legal effect of the contracts. For an outfit that was clever enough to develop a way to hack 47 USC 230 through a copyright workaround, the response that the agreement should be used only against people who haven't signed it is so oddly sophomoric that it makes me wonder about the sincerity of the proffered explanation.

Timothy followed up his initial story with a postscript. In it, the dentist who claimed he'd never enforced the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy backpedaled and admitted that he had, in fact, help drive a negative review off the Internet. On the plus side, the dentist publicly acknowledged that the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy wasn't a good deal for him, and he said he wouldn't renew with Medical Justice. Hey doctors and other healthcare professionals, I hope you took note.

Second, John Swapceinski of RateMDs made a post entitled "Medical Justice planting glowing reviews on RateMDs.com." Apparently, John saw some early activity from a new Medical Justice offering called the "Review Builder Program" that Medical Justice claims will help patients leave reviews from doctors' offices. Timothy at Ars Technica has plenty of sharp words about the program and the possibility of Medical Justice duplicity.

Third, we are working on Phase 2 of the DoctoredReviews project, during which we identified another doctrinal oddity: doctors, based on their purported copyright ownership, can obtain and send 512(h) expedited subpoena requests in an effort to unmask the review author--in a process that is outside of public view and without any substantive judicial oversight. Obviously, review websites can (and should) push back on these subpoenas, but I have some reason to believe that the Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy's purported copyright assignment is producing unmaskings that would not occur if supervised in a court of law. I'm adding this attack on privacy to the taxonomy of abusive takedown practices I'm developing.

Posted by Eric at 02:18 PM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts , Privacy/Security | TrackBack

May 31, 2011

April-May 2011 Quick Links, Part 2 (Copyright Edition)

By Eric Goldman

* COICA is dead, but S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act, has arisen from its ashes. Criticisms from technologists and the EFF.

* The Department of Homeland Security's domain name seizures are probably the single worst US government abuse of the Internet ever. Further confirmation of that: Techdirt: “Why We Haven't Seen Any Lawsuits Filed Against The Government Over Domain Seizures: Justice Department Stalling."

* CA SB 550: Latest ridiculous proposal from the RIAA, especially in light of the DHS f-ups: “The bill would authorize law enforcement officers to perform inspections, as specified, at commercial optical disc manufacturing facilities during regular business hours without a warrant for the purpose of verifying compliance with these provisions and would authorize law enforcement officers, in performing these investigations, to seize any optical disc or production part manufactured in violation of these provisions.” Wired's coverage: “RIAA Legislation: No Warrant Required to Search, Seize Optical-Disc Plants.”

* S. 978: proposal to amend criminal copyright infringement laws to create a felony for streaming. In my work on criminal copyright infringement, I explained that criminal copyright infringement was an inexorable path to become meaner.

* There were a lot of interesting developments in the LimeWire case leading up to the damages trial.

- statutory damages are computed on a per-song basis so long as the songs were commercially available individually. Contrast the Bryant case.

- the labels had already collected damages from the direct infringers in 104 recordings. Nevertheless, the court says the labels can collect statutory damages from LimeWire for these recordings as well, but the judge can adjust the award to reflect this. [Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. 06-5936 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2011)].

- LimeWire could not introduce evidence that it had a good faith belief that they were not operating an unlawful business [Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. 06-5936 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2011)].

- The parties ultimately settled for $105M.

- In a partially related development, CNET was sued for facilitating copyright infringement by distributing LimeWire. Tertiary infringement anyone?

* Another copyright owner gets a Pyhrric victory on damages. In Gaylord v. US, the Postal Service reused a photo for one of its stamps and the court found copyright infringement. The photographer asked for $3M; instead, the court awarded damages of only $5,000.

* ACEMLA v. ASCAP (1st Cir. April 21, 2011). Copyright fee shift (17 USC 505) available for the defendant even if the plaintiff didn't make a timely registration of the copyright.

* There were many lowlights in the Righthaven train wreck over the past two months. Two of the lowest:

- Righthaven's Strategic Alliance Agreement with Stephens Media was released (starting on page 6). Joe Mullin's recap. In response to the agreement, the court in Righthaven v. Pahrump Life ordered Righthaven to show cause why case should not be dismissed for a sham copyright assignment, and Judge Kane has stayed all of the Denver Post-related Righthaven litigation in Colorado pending an analysis of Righthaven’s standing under its agreement with MediaNews.

- Righthaven dropped the Brian Hill lawsuit after the judge had some impliedly critical remarks about the case. The dismissal. In the dismissal, Righthaven griped that "Righthaven was unaware of the Defendant’s alleged medical condition prior to filing suit." Well, that's why respectable copyright owners send takedown notices before running to court without all of the facts. It's hard to be sympathetic to Righthaven when it fails to do even basic pre-suit research and then bitches about being surprised. Pathetic. Righthaven continues: "Defendant’s incessant use of the Internet as a means to post inflammatory statements about Righthaven and about these legal proceedings say more about his cognitive ability than one would otherwise surmise from the press statements made by his counsel." Classy... The court didn't appreciate Righthaven's saber-rattling and struck that part of the pleading. As Joe Mullin indicates, Righthaven's antics have annoyed the judge, and Righthaven may want to rethink its entire Colorado litigation strategy. Righthaven struck back with an incredible F-U to the judge. Meanwhile, was Righthaven pressuring Hill to agree to a false press release as part of the proposed settlement?

* AdAge: When It Comes to Ad Avoidance, the DVR Is Not the Problem

* Google lost its Belgian appeal in the Copiepresse case.

* Eros v. Linden settled.

* Angst over Lady Gaga's requirement that photographers assign over the copyrights to the photos they take at her concerts.

* Perfect 10 v Giganews complaint.

* Flowserve Corp. v. Hallmark Pump Co., 2011 WL 1527951 (S.D. Tex.). A company copied-and-pasted its competitor’s product shots as depictions of its own products, which you can’t do. Rebecca is on the case.

* Venkat and I participated (with Evan Brown and Jonathan Bailey) on TWiL 111, mostly discussing copyrights. Listen in.

Posted by Eric at 08:48 AM | Copyright , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 30, 2011

April-May 2011 Quick Links, Part 1 (Trademarks and Advertising Edition)

By Eric Goldman

Trademark

* Facebook has quite an active trademark docket.

- Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com, LLC, 2011 WL 1672464 (N.D.Cal. May 3, 2011). Facebook’s trademark suit against Teachbook was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Facebook promptly refiled in Illinois.

- Facebook sues Various over a "Face Book of Sex" site.

- Facebook v. Bearbook. Facebook forced a name change at a site for "bears."

* What are people bringing trademark lawsuits over? Sears is suing over DieHard sex spray, whiskey manufacturers are suing over “Give ‘Em the Bird,” and the Huey P. Newton Foundation is suing CafePress over "All Power to the People" (one of the rare times when "Power to the People" and trademark enforcement will be in the same sentence). And don't forget the laughable claim that the NYSE has trademark protection in its trading floor.

* Newport News Holding Co v. Virtual City Vision (4th Cir. April 18, 2011). Newportnews.com is the subject of an ACPA loss 10 years after it survived a UDRP. What went wrong? "[I]n making changes to its website in 2007, VCV shifted its focus away from the legitimate service of providing information related to the city of Newport News and became instead a website devoted primarily to women’s fashion....VCV cannot escape the consequences of its deliberate metamorphosis....newportnews.com went from being a website about a city that happened to have some apparel advertisements to a website about women’s apparel that happened to include minimal references to the city of Newport News." Result of the ACPA loss: $80k in damages, $10k in sanctions and attorneys' fees.

* It was a bad two months for plaintiffs suing keyword advertising defendants:

- Starsurgical, Inc. v. Aperta, LLC, 2011 WL 2037554 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011): “Star also claims that defendants infringe its mark by using it as a “keyword” on internet search engine advertising such that whenever a customer performs a search for the phrase “Wittmann Patch” defendants' website appears as a sponsored search result. Star, however, makes no effort to explain how this activity confuses consumers. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Midwest Motor Express, 181 F.3d 799, 808 (7th Cir.1999) (arguments not developed in any meaningful way are waived); see also Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, No. 10–55840, 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 4488, at *37–39 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2011) (using a trademark in keyword advertising does not violate Lanham Act absent showing of likelihood of confusion).”

- World Entertainment, Inc. v. Brown, 2011 WL 2036686 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2011): “Plaintiffs showed Brown's use of their protected trademarks in advertising and diverting internet traffic to Grand Entertainment's website through search engine phrase matching using Google Adwords and meta tags, but they did not offer any evidence suggesting the percentage of their business downturn caused by such infringement.” Accord InternetShopsInc.com v. Six C Consulting, Inc.

- The Scooter Store v. SpinLife.com, 2011 WL 1460438 (S.D. Ohio amended opinion April 18, 2011). The Scooter Store sued SpinLife for buying its trademarks in Google AdWords. This ruling preserves SpinLife’s antitrust counterclaims.

- Traveler's Joy, Inc. v. Haycco LLC, 2011 WL 1587132 (S.D. Ind. April 26, 2011): "In an attempt to stave off dismissal, Joy points to numerous screenshots of Google's search results and pages generally discussing how Google's “AdWords” keyword-based advertising program operates. Based on this “evidence,” Joy jumps to the conclusion that Haycco's advertisements are specifically targeted to users in Indianapolis. However, this evidence is in no way sufficient to establish that Haycco engaged in any such intentional targeting of Indiana. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that Haycco only engages in general web advertising."

* Architectural Mailboxes, LLC v. Epoch Design, LLC, 2011 WL 1630809 (S.D. Cal. April 28, 2011). In a case involving critical comparative advertising, the court grants the advertiser’s nominative use defense on a motion to dismiss. Rebecca’s coverage.

* Koch v. Does. A hoax press release survives a trademark challenge. Coverage from EFF and Bill McGeveran.

* Eva Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises Inc. (7th Cir. May 10, 2011). A botched franchising attempt leads to a finding that the purported franchisor abandoned the mark.

* be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 2011 WL 1565490 (7th Cir. April 27, 2011). An alleged knockoff website didn't have jurisdiction when it had only 20 registered users in the plaintiff's home court.

Advertising

* The plaintiffs voluntarily dropped the Taco Bell beef lawsuit. But Taco Bell may not be done with the plaintiffs.

* NYT: A study suggests that 3 credit card merchant account providers support the vast majority of spammers. The paper. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly encourage politicians to deputize credit card providers as the Internet police.

* In a crackdown on fake "news" sites promoting acai berries, the FTC takes another broad view about affiliate liability (1, 2).

* Similarly, “The FTC has consistently maintained that sellers are responsible for their marketers’ telephone calls to solicit purchases of the seller’s goods or services.”

* NYT: angst about advergames oriented towards kids. Evidence that kids don't understand ad labeling.

* The vegan-oriented magazine VegNews used stock photos of items containing meat to accompany the vegan recipes it publishes (and didn't disclose this fact). The vegan community erupted in anger. VegNews initially stood its ground but finally relented and apologized.

* NYT on functional foods.

* Patton Boggs: "FTC Enforcement Against Individuals: Legal Standards Impacting Individual Liability for Alleged Violations Enforced by the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection."

Posted by Eric at 08:24 AM | Derivative Liability , Marketing , Trademark | TrackBack

May 27, 2011

Review Website Should Get 47 USC 230 Dismissal But Judge Keeps Case Open in "Abundance of Caution"--Frontier Van Lines v. MoverReviews.com

By Eric Goldman

Frontier Van Line Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Valley Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 2110825 (W.D. Pa. May 24, 2011)

MoverReviews.com is a review website for moving companies. Frontier Van Lines alleges that a MoverReviews user, Schmidt, made 2 defamatory posts and that MoverReviews "published, authored, created, or acted in concert with Schmidt in authoring, creating, and posting and in failing to remove the alleged defamatory statements."

Pled this way, it should be an easy 47 USC 230 dismissal. Calling MoverReviews the "publisher" seals the deal; and the rest of the verbs are the kind of bald-faced factually unsupported assertions that a plaintiff proffers to get around the obvious 47 USC 230 problem. To bolster this plead-around, Frontier Van Lines makes the typical move of invoking the Roommates.com decision.

The court does a few savvy things in response. First, the court recognizes that MoverReviews is more like the "free text" area in Roommates.com, which the Roommates.com case said qualified for 47 USC 230, because Frontier Van Lines didn't allege that MoverReviews "shaped" the allegedly defamatory reviews. Second, because of Frontier Van Lines' unsupported conclusory allegations, the court says that "Frontier has failed to 'nudge' its claims 'across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" (citing Iqbal).

Yet, like some other courts faced with an obvious 47 USC 230 immunity recently (see, e.g., Smith v. TRUSTe, Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation and Robins v. Spokeo), the court just couldn't bring itself to grant a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Instead, the court says:

out of an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Frontier an opportunity to develop the record with respect to this issue; and therefore, will deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice for Valley Solutions to file a prompt motion for summary judgment after the exchange of the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, and limited discovery

If the court thinks Frontier Van Lines could replead a plausible claim, it should have dismissed the complaint with a leave to amend. That's what I think Iqbal requires. Instead, the court put the financial burden on the defendant to engage in discovery and file a summary judgment motion. Even if the discovery is "limited," MoverReviews shouldn't have to bear that costs if Frontier Van Line can't make the threshold showing. If the court was going to impose these costs on the defendant, I think it should have said that Frontier Van Lines has a choice: it can tuck its tail between its legs and go away now at no cost, or it can pay for the costs that MoverReviews incurs to fulfill these obligations if MoverReviews wins its summary judgment motion (which seems highly likely).

Notice that this case probably comes out very differently in California under its generous anti-SLAPP protections. So long as the reviews addressed, even tangentially, a matter of public interest, then a CA court almost certainly would have granted MoverReviews' anti-SLAPP motion and made Frontier Van Lines pay MoverReviews' attorneys' fees. So even though this case is mostly a strong defense-side win, it's also a great case study of why we need federal anti-SLAPP legislation.

Posted by Eric at 10:00 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 22, 2011

Dentist Pays Sizable Penalty for Not Knowing 47 USC 230--Wong v. Jing

By Eric Goldman

Wong v. Jing, 1-08-CV-12997I (Cal. Superior Ct. May 13, 2011). Wendy Davis' story on this ruling, plus coverage in DrBicuspid.com.

At DoctoredReviews.com, we discussed that doctors upset with patients' reviews can always bring a lawsuit. However, as we note, doctor-vs.-patients lawsuits should be an extraordinary step for extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, suing patients can become a big--and costly--mistake.

This lawsuit involves a Yelp review of a dentist. In my previous blog post on this case, I explained how the court issued a split ruling in the case. Several of the dentist's claims were tossed on anti-SLAPP grounds, while the defamation claim against the author survived the anti-SLAPP motion and remains a possible risk to the patient. Because the court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, the defendants were entitled to their attorneys' fees and costs for the anti-SLAPPed claim. In this ruling, the court awards those fees and costs to the tune of $80,000.

The dentist foolishly sued Yelp in the lawsuit but voluntarily dismissed Yelp after the plaintiff's lawyer decided that 47 USC 230 immunized Yelp. The prior ruling was vague about whether Yelp's attorneys' fees were awardable, but this ruling awards those fees as part of the $80k. The court doesn't break out the portion of the attorneys' fees attributable to Yelp as opposed to the other defendants. I contacted the defense attorney, Mark Goldowitz of the California Anti-SLAPP Project, and it appears that at least $8k of the fees could be attributable to Yelp's portion of the defense. Accordingly, the dentist (or almost certainly her attorney) will be writing a decent-sized check to the defense for the attorney's 47 USC 230 error. Another cautionary tale for plaintiff's counsel.

Posted by Eric at 09:39 AM | Content Regulation , Derivative Liability | TrackBack

May 20, 2011

Court Allows Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims Against Spokeo to Move Forward -- Robins v. Spokeo

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with comments from Eric]

Robins v. Spokeo, No. CV10 05306 ODW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.; May 11, 2011)

I previously blogged about Spokeo, which is being sued for disseminating reports which allegedly contain inaccurate information about plaintiff. The court initially dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to allege actual harm.

Plaintiff refiled its lawsuit and alleges harm sufficient to satisfy the court:

the court finds that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to confer Article III standing. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged an injury in fact - the "marketing of inaccurate consumer reporting information about plaintiff" - that is fairly traceable to defendant's conduct - alleged FCRA violations - and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision from this court.

This just sounds like a formulaic recitation of harm, but it's good enough for the court. To allege standing under certain statutes you, just have to allege a violation of the statute. In other cases, you have to allege actual harm.

Apart from lack of standing, Spokeo argued that it is not a "consumer reporting agency" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Spokeo pointed its disclaimers which stated that the reports furnished by Spokeo "cannot be used for FCRA purposes." The court is not swayed by this argument and points to plaintiff's allegations that Spokeo marketed its reports to "HR professionals and potential employers." Plaintiff presented the court with some typical gotcha website copy that easily made the case at the pleading stage that regardless of what the disclaimers said, Spokeo intended the reports to be used for employment and credit verification purposes.

Spokeo also argued that it was entitled to protection under Section 230. The court punts on the Section 230 issue. The court's discussion of this issue is somewhat disappointing in that it gives the parties very little to work with as far as how the court will ultimately deal with the issue. The details around how the collection and dissemination of information occur could end up being important to the Section 230 analysis. (Prof. Goldman's post on Accusearch discusses this: "Roommates.com Infects the Tenth Circuit--FTC v. Accusearch.") Spokeo should be able to take in information from various agencies, aggregate it, and redistribute it without losing Section 230 protection. (See, e.g., AOL v. Drudge.) To the extent Spokeo is just taking in reports that third parties already create, it should be difficult for plaintiff to argue that Spokeo falls under the Ninth Circuit's Roommates decision and somehow plays a role in the creation of the content. It's also worth separating the "score" assigned by Spokeo, with respect to which Spokeo will likely be able to argue some First Amendment protection (see Brown v. Avvo), from the information that is taken in from third parties and disseminated. Maybe the pleadings and the briefing didn't highlight what exactly whether plaintiff was complaining about the information that came from third parties or the "score" assigned by Spokeo, but these seem like issues the court could have delved into in order to provide some clarity to the parties.

The court also dismisses plaintiff's claims under California's unfair competition statute on the basis that the plaintiff did not allege that he "lost money or property" as a result of the unfair competition. Here the court finds that the plaintiff's conclusory allegations of lost income from continued unemployment are insufficient.

Previous post: "Court Dismisses Class Action Against Spokeo for Lack of Standing"
____________

Eric's comments

The court's 47 USC 230 discussion is terse. The entire substantive discussion:

Defendant asserts that it is immune under the CDA because it is an “interactive computer service” that “passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties.” Plaintiff, however, alleges that CDA immunity does not apply to Defendant because unlike information content providers that simply reorganize information obtained from other content providers, “Defendant develops original content based on information obtained from a variety of sources and posts it online[.]” Accordingly, application of the immunity is not clear at this time and the Court declines to dismiss the Complaint on this basis.

This could be another example of a judge being too cautious to use 230 on a motion to dismiss. The court appears to have allowed the bald assertion that Spokeo "develops" content to survive the dismissal motion. As Venkat says, what the judge should have done is require the plaintiff to be more specific about exactly what Spokeo did to develop the content.

We've seen a couple other recent examples where courts have let bald assertions like this survive a 230 dismissal, only to come to its senses at the summary judgment stage and decide 230 applied after all. (See the Kruska and Smith cases). My guess is that something similar will happen here too, with the twist that anything Spokeo actually develops will be its protected opinion (much like the Avvo case, as Venkat notes). A late 230 defense is better than no 230 defense, but it still incurs a lot of needless costs and wasted motion. It's unfortunate this judge wasn't more aggressive at policing the obvious 230 issue at the pleading stage.

Posted by Venkat at 08:08 AM | Derivative Liability , Publicity/Privacy Rights

Another Ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act Doesn't Apply to Websites--Ouellette v. Viacom

By Eric Goldman

Ouellette v. Viacom: The magistrate report: 2011 WL 1882780 (D. Mont. March 31, 2011). The judge's approval of the magistrate's report: 2011 WL 1883190 (D. Mont. May 17, 2011). The original complaint (he filed an amended complaint that served as the basis of these rulings).

[Note: this lawsuit is gossip-worthy because the plaintiff named YouTube and Viacom as co-defendants, leading to the possibility that they might work together on a joint defense despite their bitter feud in Viacom v. YouTube.]

Just yesterday, I blogged about Young v. Facebook, in which Judge Fogel held that Facebook wasn't covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act because it wasn't a physical place. In this unrelated ruling (there were no cross-citations between the opinion), YouTube and MySpace get a virtually identical ruling. Perhaps we will see enough precedent develop that websites aren't covered by the ADA to suppress further plaintiffs forays. Today's rulings also have some interesting discussion about the application of 17 USC 512's safe harbors to a user whose content is removed.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se and in pro per. Trying to summarize, it appears his main allegations are that YouTube and MySpace wrongfully removed his videos in response to allegedly bogus takedown notices from Viacom and other content owners. Because of his pro per status, the court does an initial screen to determine if the claims are frivolous. In February, the court determined that Claim I, the "DMCA" claim, wasn't frivolous--presumably, a 512(f) claim against the content owners for a bogus copyright takedown notice.

The two rulings prompting this post--the magistrate report and judge's approval--dismiss the other claims as frivolous, including the rejection of:

* a claim that the defendants violated his fair use rights. The court says that fair use is a defense, not a cause of action.
* a 512(f) claim against the defendants other than the content owners. Even though 512(f) could apply generally, the plaintiff never alleged any actual misrepresentations made by the specified defendants.
* claims that YouTube's contract had an improper venue clause (even if true, Google let the case proceed in Missoula, so the clause wasn't used) and that the contract let third parties harass him, to which the magistrate says "Under the facts alleged by Ouellette, however, Google and YouTube cannot be liable for the conduct of any third party."

After breezing through those claims, the magistrate takes a little more time with the ADA claim. The plaintiff is dyslexic. The magistrate summarizes his contention: "he alleges those Defendants discriminated against him based on his reading disability, and deprived him of access to their internet services and their “online theater”—a “place of public accommodation” governed by the ADA." Citing the AccessNow v. Southwest Airlines case, the magistrate says "an internet website, by itself, is not an actual place, or a physical, concrete structure that would qualify as a place of public accommodation under the ADA." Similar to the discussion in yesterday's Young v. Facebook ruling, the magistrate responded:

His allegations fail to identify any actual, physical place where Defendants' services are made available, and fail to assert any connection between the internet websites he sought to access, and any actual, physical structure or facility through which Defendants' services could be accessed or provided. To the contrary, Ouellette alleges only that Defendants' conduct has impeded his access to certain internet websites

In approving the magistrate report, the judge rejects the plaintiff's objection that a website's servers are the requisite physical place:

Neither a website nor its servers are “actual, physical places where goods or services are open to the public,” putting them within the ambit of the ADA. Weyer v. Twentieth Cent. Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir.2000). The public access production facility might amount to such a place, but there is no nexus between the websites and Ouellette's inability to access that physical place.

The magistrate also rejects the plaintiff's attempts to turn 17 USC 512 into an affirmative cause of action. As I read it, the plaintiff argued that the defendants' failure to follow the notice-and-takedown and counter-notice/putback provisions of 512 creates an affirmative cause of action for a user who posted the affected content. This claim is putatively separate from the 512(f) claim, which I believe is the only affirmative cause of action in 512; in my opinion, the remainder of 512 is all a safe harbor. The magistrate (approved by the judge without substantive comment) rejects the plaintiff's argument:

Ouellette's reliance on the takedown and counter notice safe-harbor procedures in the DMCA is misplaced. The Defendants' alleged compliance, or non-compliance with the procedures does not provide a basis for liability. Defendants' liability to Ouellette, if any, could only be imposed under existing principles of law independent of the DMCA's procedural requirements. Ouellette's allegations, however, do not invoke any independent theory of liability. Therefore, his claims founded upon the DMCA should be dismissed.

I'd be more excited about these rulings if it didn't involve a pro per plaintiff, because then they might be more persuasive to other judges. Nevertheless, these rulings are a useful warning to future plaintiffs that it's frivolous to argue that websites are governed by the ADA and that failure to follow the notice-takedown-counternotice-putback procedures in 512 creates a cause of action.

Posted by Eric at 07:35 AM | Content Regulation , Copyright , Derivative Liability , Licensing/Contracts | TrackBack

May 11, 2011

47 USC 230 and Message Board Cases

By Eric Goldman

[I've been sitting on this blog post since March, so this post is slightly out of date. For example, I believe the recent Kruska ruling would be a new addition to the list. Putting aside any recent developments, I think this post tells a strong story about 47 USC 230's sweet spot.]

In March, I had the opportunity to research ca