Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.,
`HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS LLC,
`
`JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., and
`
`PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTERNET ARCHIVE and DOES 1 through
`
`5, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`.
`
`Case No. 1:20-CV-04160-JGK
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED]
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSORS AS
`AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Rebecca Tushnet
`rtushnet@law.harvard.edu
`520 Hauser, Harvard Law School
`1575 Massachusetts Avenue
`Cambridge, MA 02130
`Telephone: 703-593-6759
`
`
`
`Attorney for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii
`
`IDENTITY OF AMICI CURIAE AND INTEREST IN THIS CASE .............. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`I. Nonprofit Library Lending Is a Favored Noncommercial Use. ................ 2
`
`II. Nonprofit Library Lending Is Presumptively Not Harmful To Markets
`in Which the Copyright Owner Has a Legitimate Interest. ............................... 8
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................16
`
`APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`Art. I, sec. 1, cl. 8 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Cases
`
`American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir.1994) ................ 3
`
`American Society for Testing & Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., --- F.
`Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 971735 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022) ...................................9, 12
`
`Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992) .................................10
`
`Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. Cuomo, 928 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................ 9
`
`Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) ...................................12
`
`Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) ...............................12
`
`Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006)…..8
`
`Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) ....................................................4, 10
`
`Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014) .. 1, 3, 6, 11,
`12
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ........................................................... 8
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ................................................................... 6
`
`Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) .................. 9
`
`Google v. Oracle, 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021); ............................................. 3, 10, 11, 13
`
`Harbus v. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc., 2020 WL 1990866
`(SD.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................8, 10
`
`Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1283 (N.D.
`Cal. 1991) .............................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992)
` ..............................................................................................................................11
`
`National Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Handgun Control Fed’n of Ohio, 15 F.3d 559 (6th
`Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................4, 9
`
`Núñez v. Caribbean Intern. News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) ....................10
`
`Peterman v. Republican National Comm., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (D. Mont. 2019)
`
`
`
` ............................................................................................................................ 6-7
`
`Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc., 279 F.Supp.3d 708 (E.D. Va. 2018) .......... 5
`
`Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir.
`1996) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Sony Corp. o Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ..........................6, 8
`
`Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.2014)
`
`
`
` ........................................................................................................................ 8, 10,
`
`Walsh v. Townsquare Media, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) .............11
`
`Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 420 U.S. 376 (1975) ................................ 5
`
`Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973)................... 5
`
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. §107 ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`17 U.S.C. §108 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §109 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §110 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §111 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §112 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §118 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`17 U.S.C. §121 ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`17 U.S.C. §121A ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational 65 (2009) ........................................................... 9
`
`Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of
`Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (2004) ................ 3-4
`
`Mark Bartholomew & John Tehranian, An Intersystemic View of Intellectual
`Property and Free Speech, 81 George Washington Law Review 1, 22 (2013) .... 7
`
`Barton Beebe, An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-
`2005, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 549, 602-03 (2008) ........................................................ 5
`
`Yochai Benkler, Through the Looking Glass: Alice and the Constitutional
`Foundations of the Public Domain, Law & Contemp. Probs. Winter/Spring
`2003, at 173 ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ................................................................... 7
`
`Julie E. Cohen, Copyright and the Perfect Curve, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1799, 1816
`(2000) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Jennifer Femminella, Online Terms and Conditions Agreements: Bound by the
`Web, 17 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 87, 115–18 (2003) ..................................13
`
`Laura N. Gasaway, The New Access Right and Its Impact on Libraries and Library
`Users, 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 269, 299 (2003) ........................................................13
`
`Paul Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg To The Celestial Jukebox,
`153-54 (rev. ed. 2003) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`Henry B. Hansmann, The Role of the Nonprofit Enterprise, 89 Yale L.J. 835, 843-
`45 (1979) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Lexabear, A Deadly Education: the “dreadlocks” reference has been updated /
`authorial ability to update books due to modern technology, Reddit.com,
`https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/leattu/a_deadly_education_the_dre
`adlocks_reference_has/........................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., The Copyright Tax, 68 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 117 (2021)
` ..............................................................................................................................11
`
`William F. Patry & Shira Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit Presumptions,
`and Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 667, 680 (1992) ................................... 5
`
`Matthew Sag, Predicting Fair Use, 73 Ohio St. L.J. 47, 60 (2012) .......................... 7
`
`Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar, & Dan Ariely, Zero as a Special Price: The
`True Value of Free Products, 26 Marketing Sci. 742, 742 (2007) ........................ 9
`
`Janet Sinder, Correcting the Record: Post-Publication Corrections and the Integrity
`of Legal Scholarship, 112 Law Libr. J. 365 (2020) ………………………………………………..14
`
`Rebecca Tushnet, All of This Has Happened Before and All of This Will Happen
`Again, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1447 (2014) .................................................. 13, 15
`
`Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts
`After Eldred, 44 Liquormart, and Bartnicki, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 697, 726 (2003) .. 4
`
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 226 (1973) .................................................... 7
`
`Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J.
`283 (1996) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`Neil Weinstock Netanel, Market Hierarchy and Copyright in Our System of Free
`Expression, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1879, 1907-09 (2000) ............................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`IDENTITY OF AMICI CURIAE AND INTEREST IN THIS CASE
`
`Amici are scholars whose research and teaching focus is copyright law.1
`
`Amici’s interest is in the correct development of copyright law.2
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The constitutional goal of copyright protection is to “promote the progress of
`
`science and useful arts,” Art. I, sec. 1, cl. 8, and the first copyright law was “an act
`
`for the encouragement of learning,” Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769
`
`F.3d 1232, 1256 (11th Cir. 2014). This case provides an opportunity for this Court
`
`to affirm that vision by recognizing the special role that noncommercial, nonprofit
`
`uses play in supporting freedom of speech and access to knowledge.
`
`Noncommercial, nonprofit uses such as those made by libraries receive special
`
`consideration in the fair use analysis because those uses serve important
`
`democratic interests that aren’t served elsewhere, are easily suppressed because
`
`they aren’t supported by the profit motive, and have different market effects than
`
`profit-seeking uses.
`
`
`1 Institutional affiliations are provided solely for purposes of identification.
`2 The Internet Archive has consented to the filing of this brief. Plaintiffs do not
`object. Neither the parties nor their counsel have authored this brief, and neither
`they nor any other person or entity other than counsel for amicus curiae contributed
`money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`I.
`
`Nonprofit Library Lending Is a Favored Noncommercial Use.
`
`The first fair use factor requires a court to consider “the purpose and
`
`character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
`
`nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. §107. The statutory language opposes
`
`“commercial” to “nonprofit educational,” and while there are many variations on
`
`the scenarios in which works are used fairly, and many commercial fair uses, the
`
`Internet Archive’s digital lending program falls on the specially favored nonprofit,
`
`noncommercial side.
`
`Nonprofit uses do not depend on the profit motive. Nonprofit users cannot
`
`internalize all the benefits of their uses through charging a market-set price. See
`
`Henry B. Hansmann, The Role of the Nonprofit Enterprise, 89 Yale L.J. 835, 843-
`
`45 (1979). As a result, socially beneficial nonprofit uses, including those that
`
`support the “Progress of Science and Useful Arts,” will often not occur unless
`
`there are special protections in place for them. See id. at 877-79. It is for this
`
`reason that copyright law, like other areas of law, has long accorded special
`
`treatment to nonprofit activities, not just in §107 but in §108 (library/archive
`
`reproductions), §109 (nonprofit lending), §110 (nonprofit performances), §111
`
`(nonprofit transmissions), §112 (nonprofit ephemeral copies), §114
`
`(noncommercial educational radio), §118 (noncommercial broadcasting), and §121
`
`& §121A (nonprofit reproductions for people with disabilities); see also American
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir.1994) (distinguishing
`
`“commercial exploitation” from fair uses that generate “value that benefits the
`
`broader public interest”; distinction turns on “private economic rewards reaped by
`
`the secondary user (to the exclusion of broader public benefits)”).
`
`Because of these special features of nonprofit uses, they are also consistent
`
`with the ultimate constitutional goal of copyright, to promote creative progress. See
`
`Google v. Oracle, 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1196, 1203, 1208 (2021); Patton, 769 F.3d at
`
`1257. They do so by providing access that would otherwise be unavailable.
`
`Nonprofit uses enable a richer, more democratic culture that is vibrant and creative
`
`precisely because they provide alternatives to commercial exchange for creating
`
`and accessing knowledge. See Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic
`
`Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, 79
`
`N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (2004); Yochai Benkler, Through the Looking Glass: Alice and
`
`the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Domain, Law & Contemp. Probs.,
`
`Winter/Spring 2003, at 173; Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright and a Democratic
`
`Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J. 283 (1996).
`
`Improving access is important because democracy requires more than
`
`democratically elected rulers; it requires informed democratic culture and
`
`knowledge. Freedom to participate in public life requires the resources to
`
`participate and the freedom to debate and disagree about meaning of shared
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`culture. And this requires robust nonprofit institutions providing access to the basic
`
`elements of culture. Balkin, supra, at 34-45, 50-54. A work accessed through the
`
`Internet Archive “is materially more valuable to readers than the original that they
`
`can’t get, that costs too much, or that they don’t know about . . . .” Eugene Volokh,
`
`Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts After Eldred, 44
`
`Liquormart, and Bartnicki, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 697, 726 (2003); see also Paul
`
`Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg To The Celestial Jukebox, 153-
`
`54 (rev. ed. 2003) (uses in schools and libraries “advance copyright’s general aim
`
`of promoting cultural and political discourse”). This ability to equalize and share
`
`resources is a particularly important function in times of extreme social isolation,
`
`such as the global COVID pandemic.
`
`Here, the Internet Archive’s use was precisely the kind of noncommercial,
`
`nonprofit use that is specially favored under the law. See National Rifle Ass’n of
`
`Am. v. Handgun Control Fed’n of Ohio, 15 F.3d 559, 562 (6th Cir. 1994)
`
`(nonprofit’s free dissemination of work was noncommercial, favoring fair use);
`
`Harbus v. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc., 2020 WL 1990866
`
`(SD.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020) (first factor “weighs decidedly in favor of a finding of fair
`
`use” where copier was 501(c)(3) nonprofit that didn’t use copying to solicit
`
`donations or promote sales) (citing Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 253 (2d Cir.
`
`2006) (“The commercial/nonprofit dichotomy concerns the unfairness that arises
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`when a secondary user makes unauthorized use of copyrighted material to capture
`
`significant revenues as a direct consequence of copying the original work.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (citation omitted); Philpot v. Media Research Center Inc., 279
`
`F.Supp.3d 708, 718 (E.D. Va. 2018) (freely distributed use by nonprofit favored
`
`fair use); Barton Beebe, An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions,
`
`1978-2005, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 549, 602-03 (2008) (finding significant influence of
`
`noncommerciality in caselaw; “the fact that a defendant’s use is for a
`
`noncommercial purpose should be understood, as it appears it already is in
`
`practice, strongly to support a finding of fair use”); William F. Patry & Shira
`
`Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit Presumptions, and Parody, 11 Cardozo
`
`Arts & Ent. L.J. 667, 680 (1992) (“a use for educational purposes in a nonprofit
`
`institution not charging any fee” stands “[a]t one extreme of the continuum (the
`
`most favorable for the defense)”).
`
`By providing the building blocks for future insights, these access-promoting
`
`institutions serve the purposes of copyright and the First Amendment. Williams &
`
`Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345, 1358 (Ct. Cl. 1973) (holding that
`
`copying, for research purposes, material that is “stimulating or helpful,” even if not
`
`“crucial,” produces important social benefits), aff’d by an equally divided Court,
`
`420 U.S. 376 (1975); Julie E. Cohen, Copyright and the Perfect Curve, 53 Vand.
`
`L. Rev. 1799, 1816 (2000) (noting the connection and potential temporal gap
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`between access and further uses, including transformative uses); Neil Weinstock
`
`Netanel, Market Hierarchy and Copyright in Our System of Free Expression, 53
`
`Vand. L. Rev. 1879, 1907-09 (2000) (arguing that works shared by many people
`
`have additional value over and above the intrinsic value to the individual
`
`consumer).
`
`Special protections for noncommercial, nonprofit use also implement the
`
`First Amendment’s distinction between commercial speech—speech that proposes
`
`a commercial transaction—and noncommercial speech. See, e.g., Peterman v.
`
`Republican National Comm., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1062 (D. Mont. 2019)
`
`(defendant’s copying was noncommercial and thus subject to greater First
`
`Amendment protection than commercial speech that advertises a product; “[i]t
`
`makes sense that fair use doctrine respects [the First Amendment] distinction, as
`
`“copyright’s purpose is to promote the creation and publication of free
`
`expression”) (citing Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219 (2003)). Nonprofit uses
`
`are a particularly valuable and necessary subset of noncommercial speech, given
`
`their distance from marketplace transactions.
`
`It is also important that a use does not become “commercial” simply because
`
`it may replace a sale or license—that would turn factor one into a mere repetition
`
`of factor four, market effect. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464
`
`U.S. 417, 450 n.33 (1984) (rejecting the argument that a use is necessarily
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`commercial if it replaces a sale); Patton, 769 F.3d at 1265 (such “circular”
`
`reasoning on commerciality is “of limited usefulness” given that “any unlicensed
`
`use of copyrighted material profits the user in the sense that the user does not pay a
`
`potential licensing fee”; “[i]f this analysis were persuasive, no use could qualify as
`
`‘nonprofit’ under the first factor”); id. at 1267 (finding that copying for student
`
`coursepacks was “nonprofit educational” use favored by Congress, and this was
`
`“sufficiently weighty” to tilt first factor in favor of defendants even absent
`
`transformativeness); Peterman, 369 F. Supp. 3d at 1063 (“[S]elf-interest is not
`
`equivalent to commerciality; if [plaintiff’s] proposed interpretation of
`
`commerciality were adopted, no use would be [non]commercial.”); Mark
`
`Bartholomew & John Tehranian, An Intersystemic View of Intellectual Property
`
`and Free Speech, 81 George Washington Law Review 1, 22 (2013) (noting that
`
`First Amendment doctrine limits the concept of commerciality in speech, and that
`
`factor four addresses market harm); Matthew Sag, Predicting Fair Use, 73 Ohio
`
`St. L.J. 47, 60 (2012) (market effect should not be double-counted).3
`
`
`3 At the time the Copyright Act was enacted, Webster’s relevantly defined the
`adjective “commercial” as “engaged in work designed for the market,” “of or
`relating to commerce,” “characteristic of commerce,” “viewed with regard to
`profit,” and “designed for a large market,” with “commerce” relevantly defined as
`“the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale. . . .”
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 226 (1973). See also Black’s Law Dictionary
`(10th ed. 2014) (“commercial” means “[o]f, relating to, or involving the buying
`and selling of goods ... [r]esulting or accruing from commerce or exchange …
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`Courts regularly require commercial entities to seek to profit directly from a
`
`work before weighing commerciality against them; the rule cannot be harsher for a
`
`nonprofit use. See, e.g., Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756
`
`F.3d 73, 83 (2d Cir.2014) (discounting commercial nature of use where “the link
`
`between the defendant's commercial gain and its copying is attenuated such that it
`
`would be misleading to characterize the use as commercial exploitation”) (cleaned
`
`up); Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 612 (2d Cir.
`
`2006) (defendant did not use images “in its commercial advertising or in any other
`
`way to promote the sale of [its] book” and therefore “DK does not seek to exploit
`
`the images’ expressive value for commercial gain”); Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
`
`336 F.3d 811, 818 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding “use of [copyrighted work] was more
`
`incidental and less exploitative in nature than more traditional types of commercial
`
`use” where commercial defendant did not use works directly to promote itself or
`
`sell them).
`
`II. Nonprofit Library Lending Is Presumptively Not Harmful To Markets
`in Which the Copyright Owner Has a Legitimate Interest.
`
`In 1984, the Supreme Court established a presumption that noncommercial
`
`uses are not harmful to markets in which the copyright owner has a legitimate
`
`
`while “commercial use” is “[a] use that is connected with or furthers an ongoing
`profit-making activity”).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`interest. The burden is on the plaintiff to show “by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists.” Sony, 464 U.S. at 451.
`
`The Supreme Court has never retreated from this presumption, despite
`
`altering aspects of its analysis of commercial fair uses. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
`
`[full/pincite]. Courts have repeatedly applied the presumption, including in cases
`
`of full copying. See, e.g., Fox Broad. Co. v. Dish Network L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060,
`
`1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (weighing fourth factor in favor of noncommercial use);
`
`Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381, 1385 (6th Cir.
`
`1996); National Rifle Ass’n, 15 F.3d at 561; Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. Cuomo,
`
`928 F.2d 519, 526 (2d Cir. 1991) (Mahoney, J., concurring); American Society for
`
`Testing & Materials v. Public.Resource.org, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL
`
`971735, at *15 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022) (ASTM) (finding that fourth factor favored
`
`noncommercial defendant for its public distribution).
`
`The presumption makes sense given the different role that nonprofit,
`
`noncommercial use plays in allowing access and supporting uses that would not
`
`survive in a purely commercial market because users cannot internalize their full
`
`benefits, as discussed above. It is consistent with the strong empirical evidence
`
`that people react very differently to “free” offers, even compared to a cost of only
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`one penny.4 Users of the Internet Archive are simply unlikely to be paying
`
`customers even if the Internet Archive were unavailable, and so the existence of
`
`market harm needs to be proven. For similar reasons, including the constraints of
`
`institutional budgets and libraries’ incentives to offer as broad a range of resources
`
`as possible, the hypothesis that institutions would be taking more licenses in the
`
`absence of the Internet Archive is unpersuasive.
`
`The presumption against harm further implements the Supreme Court’s
`
`instruction that the market analysis must “take into account the public benefits the
`
`copying will likely produce.” Oracle, 141 S.Ct. at 1206. Such a presumption
`
`against cognizable harm is particularly appropriate in situations in which the
`
`copyright owner has already had significant opportunity to exploit its work,
`
`interacting with factor two of the fair use analysis. See, e.g., Swatch, 756 F.3d at 89
`
`(“[B]ecause Swatch Group publicly disseminated the spoken performance
`
`embodied in the recording before Bloomberg’s use, the publication status of the
`
`work favors fair use.”); Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 256 (2d. Cir. 2006); Kelly,
`
`
`4 Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational 65 (2009) (finding that “free” substantially
`changes consumption behavior); Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar, & Dan Ariely,
`Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products, 26 Marketing Sci. 742,
`742 (2007) (same; 73% were willing to pay 14¢ for a truffle instead of 1¢ for a
`Hershey’s Kiss, but 69% chose the Kiss when the truffle was 13¢ and the Kiss was
`free; finding that “people appear to act as if zero pricing of a good not only
`decreases its cost but also adds to its benefits,” even where an objective cost-
`benefit analysis would disagree).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`336 F.3d at 820 (“The fact that a work is published or unpublished also is a critical
`
`element of its nature. Published works are more likely to qualify as fair use
`
`because the first appearance of the artist’s expression has already occurred.”)
`
`(footnote omitted); Núñez v. Caribbean Intern. News Corp., 235 F.3d 18, 24 (1st
`
`Cir. 2000) (fact that photographs had been distributed favored fair use); Arica
`
`Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1078 (2d Cir. 1992) (factor two favors fair
`
`use where accusing work is “a published work available to the general public”);
`
`Walsh v. Townsquare Media, Inc., 464 F. Supp. 3d 570, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (use
`
`of a previously published work favors fair use); Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v.
`
`Nintendo of America, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1283, 1293 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“The works’
`
`published nature supports the fairness of the use.”), aff’d, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir.
`
`1992).
`
`Because copyright is a “tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to
`
`writers,” Oracle, 141 S.Ct. at 1195 (citing Thomas Macauley), it is only justified
`
`when it is necessary to provide sufficient incentives to generate new expression.
`
`Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., The Copyright Tax, 68 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 117 (2021)
`
`(presenting empirical research showing that broad copyright, particularly in digital
`
`copies, harms public more than it provides creative incentives). Copyright control
`
`is not justified unless the marginal benefit of the control over a use provides that
`
`incentive, but previous widely authorized dissemination makes it unlikely that such
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 18 of 24
`
`marginal benefit is present, especially years after initial publication. This fact
`
`provides additional support for the well-established rule that a copyright owner’s
`
`desire and willingness to license does not in itself support a finding of market
`
`harm. See, e.g., Patton, 769 F.3d at 1276 (“The goal of copyright is to stimulate the
`
`creation of new works, not to furnish copyright holders with control over all
`
`markets. Accordingly, the ability to license does not demand a finding against fair
`
`use.”).
`
`In ASTM, for example, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ existing
`
`distribution mechanisms often allowed individuals to read copies of their codes
`
`freely. This is equally true of current sales of physical copies to libraries, given the
`
`existence of first sale, which allows libraries to distribute their physical copies
`
`freely. Given the wide availability of free-to-the-end-user copies, the plaintiffs
`
`could not show sufficient additional harm to their markets or incentives to tilt the
`
`fourth fair use factor against them. ASTM, 2022 WL 971735, at *15 (further noting
`
`that evidence that individuals used defendants’ nonprofit service did not mean that
`
`they would otherwise have paid for access); see also Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.,
`
`804 F.3d 202, 224 (2d Cir. 2015) (“But the possibility, or even the probability or
`
`certainty, of some loss of sales does not suffice to make the copy an effectively
`
`competing substitute that would tilt the weighty fourth factor in favor of the rights
`
`holder in the original. There must be a meaningful or significant effect ‘upon the
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 19 of 24
`
`potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.’”) (emphasis added) (citing
`
`§107); Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 101 (2d Cir. 2014) (relying
`
`on Article III standing doctrine to require a showing of market injury that is more
`
`than “conjectural” or “speculative”); Patton, 769 F.3d at 1282 (factor four “asks
`
`whether the market harm caused by Defendants’ unpaid copying will materially
`
`impair Plaintiffs’ incentive to publish”) (emphasis added).
`
`Finally, a presumption against harm is particularly appropriate in the library
`
`context, where the putative licensing alternatives regularly come with policies that
`
`harm the larger mission of libraries to preserve information and make it available
`
`to citizens on a nondiscriminatory basis. See, e.g., Laura N. Gasaway, The New
`
`Access Right and Its Impact on Libraries and Library Users, 10 J. Intell. Prop. L.
`
`269, 299 (2003) (discussing licenses that restrict libraries’ ability to distribute
`
`public domain works digitally); Jennifer Femminella, Online Terms and
`
`Conditions Agreements: Bound by the Web, 17 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 87,
`
`115–18 (2003) (discussing terms in library contracts that limit interlibrary loan,
`
`prevent archiving, and in other ways threaten long-term access to works); cf.
`
`Oracle, 141 S.Ct. at 1207 (license offered by copyright owner was no substitute for
`
`fair use where it would have afforded copyright owner control over “branding and
`
`cooperation”); Rebecca Tushnet, All of This Has Happened Before and All of This
`
`Will Happen Again, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1447 (2014) (enumerating ways in
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04160-JGK-OTW Document 143 Filed 07/19/22 Page 20 of 24
`
`