Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Organization for Transformative Works, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, and New Media Rights in Capitol v. Vimeo, No. 14-1048 (2d Cir.)

41 Pages Posted: 4 Aug 2014

See all articles by Corynne McSherry

Corynne McSherry

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Vera Ranieri

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Sherwin Siy

Public Knowledge

Elizabeth Rosenblatt

University of California, Davis

Rebecca Tushnet

Harvard Law School

Emma J Llanso

Center for Democracy and Technology

Arthur H. Neill

New Media Rights; California Western School of Law

Teri Karobonik

Independent

Jason Schultz

New York University School of Law

Phillip Malone

Stanford Law School

Jef Pearlman

Stanford Law School

Date Written: August 2, 2014

Abstract

Congress deliberately created distinct rules for online service providers in Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified in Section 512 of the Copyright Act. In order to stimulate the growth of the Internet and electronic commerce, Congress created a set of statutory “safe harbors” that helped service providers predict and manage their legal exposure to copyright infringement liability. This effort proved to be a huge success, encouraging not only the growth of the Internet generally, but the growth of innovative platforms for free expression in particular.

The district court’s rulings on both “red-flag knowledge” and pre-1972 sound recordings, if accepted, would thwart Congress’s intent and turn back the clock on the DMCA. The first ruling would effectively impose a standard for red flag knowledge that sharply diverges from this Court’s own requirement that the alleged infringement be “objectively obvious.” It would also set the copyright owner’s burden of production so low that every single service provider could be required to proceed to trial on almost any allegedly infringing material that its employees viewed. The second would present service providers with an impossible choice: either screen every audiovisual work it hosts for potential pre-1972 recordings (which could then expose them to a jury trial if the material used is arguably “well-known” and they allow it to remain online), or risk crushing liability. The result: a renewed climate of legal uncertainty for any service hosting expressive works, particularly works that might contain audio, and the loss of the free expression such services foster.

In light of this uncertainty, even moderately cautious service providers may well go a third way, and refuse to host audiovisual works at all. Thus, endorsement of these aspects of the decision below would gravely threaten the profusion of online services and the creative communities that rely upon them to the detriment our common culture. In keeping with Congress’ intent, Amici urge the Court to reject the both district court’s interpretation of the standard for red flag knowledge and its improper exclusion of claims based on pre-1972 sound recordings from Section 512, and protect the predictable legal climate the safe harbors were intended to create.

Suggested Citation

McSherry, Corynne and Ranieri, Vera and Siy, Sherwin and Rosenblatt, Elizabeth and Tushnet, Rebecca and Llanso, Emma J and Neill, Arthur H. and Karobonik, Teri and Schultz, Jason and Malone, Phillip and Pearlman, Jef, Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Organization for Transformative Works, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, and New Media Rights in Capitol v. Vimeo, No. 14-1048 (2d Cir.) (August 2, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2475486 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2475486

Corynne McSherry

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ( email )

454 Shotwell St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
United States

Vera Ranieri

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ( email )

454 Shotwell St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
United States

Sherwin Siy

Public Knowledge ( email )

1818 N Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
United States

Elizabeth Rosenblatt

University of California, Davis ( email )

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
Davis, CA CA 95616-5201
United States

Rebecca Tushnet

Harvard Law School ( email )

Cambridge, MA
United States

Emma J Llanso

Center for Democracy and Technology ( email )

1634 Eye Street NW, #1100
Washington, DC 20006
United States

Arthur H. Neill

New Media Rights ( email )

1855 1st Ave., Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92101
United States

HOME PAGE: http://newmediarights.org

California Western School of Law ( email )

225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA 92101
United States

HOME PAGE: http://cwsl.edu

Teri Karobonik

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Jason Schultz (Contact Author)

New York University School of Law ( email )

40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States

Phillip Malone

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States

Jef Pearlman

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
48
Abstract Views
712
PlumX Metrics