`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 1 of 66
`
`NO. 23-5159
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`MATTHEW D. GREEN, ET AL.,
`
`PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS,
`
`V.
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.,
`DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
`No. 1:16-cv-01492-EGS
`Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan
`
`APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Corynne McSherry
`Kit Walsh
`Mitchell L. Stoltz
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`815 Eddy Street
`San Francisco, CA 94109
`Telephone: (415) 436-9333
`Email: corynne@eff.org
`Email: kit@eff.org
`Email: mitch@eff.org
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian M. Willen
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Email: bwillen@wsgr.com
`
`Lauren Gallo White
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300,
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 947-2000
`Email: lwhite@wsgr.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants Matthew D.
`Green, Andrew “bunnie” Huang, and
`Alphamax, LLC
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 2 of 66
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Appellants hereby certify as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Parties and Amici
`
`The following were parties in the district court proceeding from which this appeal
`
`was taken and are the parties before this Court:
`
`a) Matthew D. Green
`
`b) Andrew Bunnie Huang
`
`c) Alphamax, LLC
`
`d) United States Department of Justice
`
`e) Library of Congress
`
`f) United States Copyright Office
`
`g) Carla Hayden
`
`h) Shira Perlmutter (successor to Maria Pallante, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d))
`
`i) Merrick Garland (successor to Loretta E. Lynch, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d))
`
`j) Digital Content Protection, LLC (amicus)
`
`k) Intel Corporation (amicus)
`
`l) Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator, LLC
`
`(amicus)
`
`m) DVD Copy Control Association (amicus)
`
`n) Association of American Publishers, Inc. (amicus)
`
`o) Entertainment Software Association (amicus)
`
` i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 3 of 66
`
`p) Motion Picture Association, Inc. (amicus)
`
`q) Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (amicus)
`
`B. Rulings Under Review
`
`The ruling under review is the district court’s June 27, 2019 Order Granting in Part
`
`and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF. Nos. 24, 25). The ruling was
`
`entered by Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge for the District of
`
`Columbia, in Case No. 1:16-cv-01492-EGS.
`
`C. Related Cases
`
`This case has previously been before this Court as Case No. 21-5195. There are no
`
`related cases currently before this court, or any other court.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 4 of 66
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant
`
`Alphamax LLC states that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held
`
`corporation owns 10 percent or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 5 of 66
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ......................... i
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................................. iii
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... xi
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW ....................................................................... 1
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ................................................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 4
`I.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 4
`A.
`The Challenged Regime of Section 1201(a).................................................. 4
`1.
`The Anti-Circumvention and Anti-Trafficking Provisions ................. 4
`2.
`Section 1201’s Triennial Rulemaking Process .................................... 6
`3.
`The 2015 Rulemaking .......................................................................10
`4.
`The Copyright Office’s 2017 Report .................................................12
`Section 1201(a)’s Chilling Effects on Plaintiffs .......................................... 13
`1.
`Plaintiff Matthew Green ....................................................................13
`2.
`Plaintiffs Andrew “bunnie” Huang and Alphamax ...........................15
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 17
`II.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................. 19
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 20
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 21
`I.
`BY DESIGN, SECTION 1201(a) RESTRICTS LAWFUL
`EXPRESSION........................................................................................................ 21
`iv
`
`B.
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 6 of 66
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
`FACIAL CHALLENGE TO SECTION 1201(a)’s LICENSING
`SCHEME ................................................................................................................ 26
`A.
`Section 1201(a) Establishes a Presumptively Unconstitutional
`Speech-Licensing Regime. .......................................................................... 27
`Section 1201(a) Lacks the “Narrow, Objective, and Definite
`Standards” Constitutionally Required of Speech-Licensing
`Regimes ....................................................................................................... 30
`Section 1201(a) Does Not Satisfy the Freedman Factors ........................... 36
`1.
`The Librarian’s Decision Is Not Prompt. ..........................................36
`2.
`There Is No Opportunity for Prompt Judicial Review. .....................37
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
`FACIAL OVERBREADTH CHALLENGE .......................................................... 40
`A.
`Third-Party Claims Present Different Issues from Appellants’
`As-Applied Claims. ..................................................................................... 40
`Section 1201(a) Is Overbroad Because It Imposes Significant
`Burdens on a Vast Amount of Protected Speech While Rarely
`Being Used for Its Supposed Purposes. ....................................................... 44
`1.
`Section 1201 Burdens Speech and Conduct That Are
`Plainly Lawful Under the First Amendment. ....................................45
`Any Legitimate Application of Section 1201 Is
`Overshadowed by the Burden on Legitimate Speech. ......................46
`It Would Be Unconstitutional to Apply Section 1201(a) to
`Bar the Third-Party Activities Described in the
`Complaint. .........................................................................................49
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 51
`
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 7 of 66
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ACLU v. Alvarez,
`679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 25
`Adams Outdoor Adver. Ltd. P’ship v. Pa. DOT,
`930 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................... 36
`Alexander v. United States,
`509 U.S. 544 (1993) .................................................................................................... 27
`Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach,
`621 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 25
`Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith,
`143 S. Ct. 1258 (2023) .................................................................................................. 7
`Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.,
`478 U.S. 697 (1986) .................................................................................................... 24
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) .................................................................................................... 44
`Bernstein v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`974 F. Supp. 1288 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ........................................................................... 28
`Boardley v. United States DOJ,
`615 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 49, 51
`Brandenburg v. Ohio,
`395 U.S. 444 (1969) .................................................................................................... 44
`Bronco’s Entm’t v. Charter Twp. of Van Buren,
`421 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 37
`Brown v. Ent. Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) .................................................................................................... 24
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) .................................................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 8 of 66
`
`Carter v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth.,
`503 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 19
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 42
`Cincinnati v. Discovery Network,
`507 U.S. 410 (1993) .................................................................................................... 30
`City of Ladue v. Gilleo,
`512 U.S. 43 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 49
`City of Littleton v. ZJ Gifts D-4, LLC,
`541 U.S. 774 (2004) .............................................................................................. 36, 37
`Edwards v. Dist. of D.C.,
`755 F.3d 996 (D.D.C. 2014) ....................................................................................... 49
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) .................................................................................................... 22
`Elsevier Inc. v. WWW.Schi-Hub.org,
`15 Civ. 4282(RWS), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147639
`(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2015) ............................................................................................ 48
`Epona v. Cnty. of Ventura,
`876 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................... 27
`Forsyth Cty. v. Nationalist Movement,
`505 U.S. 123 (1992) .............................................................................................. 34, 35
`Freedman v. Maryland,
`380 U.S. 51 (1965) .............................................................................. 20, 27, 36, 38, 46
`FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas,
`493 U.S. 215 (1990) (plurality opinion) ............................................................... 28, 36
`Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.,
`140 S. Ct. 1498 (2019) ................................................................................................ 22
`Golan v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 302 (2012) .............................................................................................. 22, 23
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) .......................................................................................... 43, 47
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 9 of 66
`
`Green v. United States DOJ,
`392 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D.C. 2019) ................................................ 18, 26, 27, 30, 39, 40
`Green v. United States DOJ,
`54 F.4th 738 (2022) ......................................................................................... 15, 19, 24
`Green v. United States DOJ,
`No. 16-1492 (EGS), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266496
`(D.D.C. July 15, 2021) .................................................................................... 18, 39, 43
`Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) ........................................................................................ 22, 33, 41
`Interstate Circuit v. Dallas,
`390 U.S. 685 (1968) .................................................................................................... 28
`Irizarry v. Yehia,
`38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) .................................................................................... 25
`Kaahumanu v. Hawaii,
`682 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 31
`Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y.,
`385 U.S. 589 (1967) .................................................................................................... 48
`Kissinger v. Reps. Comm. for the Freedom of the Press,
`445 U.S. 136 (1980) .................................................................................................... 38
`Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co.,
`486 U.S. 750 (1988) .................................................... 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36
`Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.,
`815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 7, 21
`Massachusetts v. Oakes,
`491 U.S. 576 (1989) .............................................................................................. 45, 50
`McCullen v. Coakley,
`573 U.S. 464 (2014) .................................................................................................... 34
`Med. Imaging & Tech. All. v. Library of Cong.,
`Civil Action No. 22-499 (BAH), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39168
`(D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2023) ................................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 10 of 66
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) .................................................................................................... 48
`Minneapolis Star & Trib. Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue,
`460 U.S. 575 (1983) .................................................................................................... 25
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ................................................................................................ 51
`Nat’l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass’n v. EPA,
`287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 39
`Ness v. City of Bloomington,
`11 F. 4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... 25
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) .................................................................................................... 33
`Sarl Louis Feraud Int’l v. Viewfinder, Inc.,
`489 F.3d 474 (2d Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 23
`Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham,
`394 U.S. 147 (1969) .............................................................................................. 30, 31
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................................................................................... 41
`Sony Music Entm’t v. Cox Communs., Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00950, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68168
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2021) .............................................................................................. 48
`Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad,
`420 U.S. 546 (1975) .................................................................................................... 28
`Spirit of Aloha Temp. v. Cnty. of Maui,
`49 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022) ...................................................................................... 32
`Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. v. Bloomberg L.P.,
`742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 23
`United States v. Stevens,
`559 U.S. 460 (2010) ........................................................................................ 20, 44, 47
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
`111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ..................................................................... 5, 50
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 11 of 66
`
`Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`444 U.S. 620 (1980) .................................................................................................... 49
`Virginia v. Hicks,
`539 U.S. 113 (2003) .................................................................................................... 45
`W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,
`319 U.S. 624 (1943) .................................................................................................... 42
`Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n,
`17 F.3d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 38
`Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton,
`536 U.S. 150 (2002) .................................................................................................... 45
`STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ................................................................................................................ 41
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ............................................................................................................ 7, 41
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) ....................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 26, 31, 32, 36
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) ....................................................................................................... 5
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) .......................................................................................................... 45
`17 U.S.C. § 1203 ................................................................................................................ 5
`17 U.S.C. § 1204 ................................................................................................................ 5
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`144 Cong. Rec. H10615 (Oct. 12, 1998) ............................................................................ 6
`80 Fed. Reg. 65,944 (Oct. 28, 2015) ................................................................................ 12
`H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2 (1998) ............................................................................ 6, 26
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ........................................................................................................ 47
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 12 of 66
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`APA
`
`DMCA
`
`EPA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 13 of 66
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`This Court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, based on the
`
`timely notice of appeal filed by Appellants on July 13, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P.
`
`4(a)(1)(B).
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW
`
`1. Did the district court err in holding that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to
`
`state a facial claim that Section 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`creates an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime contrary
`
`to
`
`the First
`
`Amendment?
`
`2. Did the district court err in holding that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to
`
`state a facial claim that Section 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is
`
`contrary to the First Amendment, despite the fact that Section 1201 sweeps up a vast
`
`amount of protected speech including fair uses of copyrighted materials which has
`
`no connection to the Government’s stated interest in preventing copyright
`
`infringement?
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`All pertinent statutes and regulations cited in this Brief are included in the
`
`addendum.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 14 of 66
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Congress disturbed the careful balance between copyright and the First
`
`Amendment when it enacted Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`(“DMCA”). Ostensibly intended to foster the distribution of copyrighted works by
`
`providing a legal buttress to copyright owners’ technical locks on copyrighted
`
`works—and assuming that the massive penalties the Copyright Act already provided
`
`would not suffice—in practice Section 1201 inhibits many activities that both
`
`copyright and the First Amendment explicitly encourage, like making films,
`
`teaching classes, or simply reading literary works that people have purchased. For
`
`the first time, it became unlawful to engage in fair uses for purposes such as
`
`education, to analyze and reproduce the non-copyrightable elements of a work, or
`
`even to read a lawfully purchased e-book, because copyrighted works are frequently
`
`encumbered with restriction technologies and Section 1201(a) makes it unlawful to
`
`read or use works in ways that conflict with those restrictions.
`
`As a result, for more than twenty years, Americans have been unable to access,
`
`create, and publish all kinds of constitutionally-protected expression, including film,
`
`art, books, games, and computer code, whenever those activities require
`
`circumvention as a necessary predicate.
`
`The Complaint and supporting documents clearly delineate these practical and
`
`legally impermissible effects. Nevertheless, the district court treated this case as one
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 15 of 66
`
`limited to whether or not Section 1201 restricts communication of software that can
`
`be used to circumvent, as if lines of code were the only expression being harmed.
`
`This fundamental error, in combination with legal errors regarding the scope of the
`
`First Amendment, led the district court to dismiss valid claims that seek to vindicate
`
`the rights of both Plaintiffs and the American public. No court has yet evaluated
`
`whether Section 1201(a) creates an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime, nor
`
`considered the decades of accumulated evidence that its impact falls predominantly
`
`on legitimate and important speech.
`
`This Court should fill that gap, and then take the further step of recognizing
`
`the fundamental conflict between Section 1201(a) and black-letter copyright and
`
`constitutional law. Section 1201(a)’s harms are practical, well-documented, and far-
`
`reaching. It not only prevents a person from making an otherwise lawful fair use of
`
`a clip from a Blu-Ray disc to effectively comment on it or teach students media
`
`literacy or filmmaking skills, it also prevents a person with print disabilities from
`
`using text-to-speech software to enjoy the book they purchased, or consumer
`
`protection researchers from reading the code in personal devices to understand how
`
`they work and whether they are invading people’s privacy. Further, it prevents
`
`communicating how to do these things. As a result, it has chilled legitimate teaching
`
`and communication about circumvention technology and computer security and has
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 16 of 66
`
`even been used to censor a news website from simply linking to another internet
`
`location where circumvention software could be obtained.
`
`Congress anticipated at least some of these harms, so it created a supposed
`
`“safety valve” that operates instead as an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime.
`
`That regime lacks both clear, definite standards and the procedural safeguards the
`
`First Amendment requires, and, as a result, has generated rules that improperly
`
`discriminate against certain types of expression and speakers.
`
`If Congress believes that there is lawful speech that must be restricted to
`
`prevent copyright infringement, it must draft a law that is narrowly tailored to the
`
`ills it seeks to prevent. Section 1201 is not that law.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Challenged Regime of Section 1201(a)
`1.
`The Anti-Circumvention and Anti-Trafficking Provisions
`Plaintiffs challenge two provisions of Section 1201(a): the anti-circumvention
`
`provision in Section 1201(a)(1), and the anti-trafficking provision in Section
`
`1201(a)(2).
`
`The first provision prohibits “circumvent[ing] a technological measure that
`
`effectively controls access to a work protected [by copyright].” 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1201(a)(1). Such measures include encryption, username/password combinations,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 17 of 66
`
`and physical memory restrictions that prevent a user from accessing stored
`
`information. JA16-17 ¶ 18.
`
`The second provision prohibits “manufactur[ing], import[ing], offer[ing] to
`
`the public, provid[ing], or otherwise traffic[king] in any technology, product,
`
`service, device, component, or part thereof, that . . . is primarily designed or
`
`produced for the purpose of” circumventing an access control technological
`
`protection measure. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). This language has been interpreted to
`
`bar the distribution of not only physical devices, but also knowledge in the form of
`
`specific numbers used as encryption keys, instructions describing the mathematical
`
`steps that can be used to read encrypted information, and even links telling a reader
`
`where this information can be found. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111
`
`F. Supp. 2d 294, 308-310, 317-18 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d sub nom. Universal City
`
`Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
`
`Both provisions include a private right of action with the possibility of
`
`injunctive relief, statutory damages, and the award of fees and costs. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1203. If the circumvention or trafficking is done for a commercial purpose, it is a
`
`federal crime punishable by up to $500,000 in fines and imprisonment for up to 5
`
`years. 17 U.S.C. § 1204(a). Prosecutors are taught that they may pursue individuals
`
`even where the circumvention or trafficking has no nexus with actual infringement.
`
`JA18-19 ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 18 of 66
`
`Under this regime, people across the United States are barred from making
`
`educational, critical, and expressive uses of copyrighted works. They cannot read
`
`works encumbered by access controls, such as the software in their personal devices,
`
`or use excerpts from digital media they lawfully own.
`
`2.
`Section 1201’s Triennial Rulemaking Process
`Congress recognized that the statute’s breadth could adversely impact
`
`legitimate and beneficial speech. H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (Part 2), at 36 (1998).
`
`Accordingly, Congress directed the U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) and the
`
`Librarian of Congress (“Librarian”) to conduct a rulemaking once every three years
`
`to determine “whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely
`
`to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition [on
`
`circumvention] in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a
`
`particular class of copyrighted works.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C); 144 Cong. Rec.
`
`H10615, H10621 (daily ed. Oct. 12, 1998) (statement of Rep. Klug). If so, the statute
`
`instructs the Librarian to grant an exemption for such uses, which expires at the end
`
`of each three-year period. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(D). The exemption process applies
`
`only to the circumvention ban and provides no shield to trafficking liability.
`
`Many of the important noninfringing uses that can be adversely affected by
`
`Section 1201(a) are fair uses. Fair use “permits courts to avoid rigid application of
`
`the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 19 of 66
`
`law is designed to foster.” Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, 143
`
`S. Ct. 1258, 1274 (2023) (quoting Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236 (1990)).
`
`Courts determine fair use based on four non-exclusive factors:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
`is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
`purposes;
`the nature of the copyrighted work;
`the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
`the copyrighted work as a whole; and
`the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
`copyrighted work.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107. Fair use is “a flexible concept, and its application may well vary
`
`depending on context.” Andy Warhol Found., 143 S. Ct. at 1274 (cleaned up).
`
`Nonetheless, fair use “is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the
`
`law.” Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2015), cert.
`
`denied, 582 U.S. 914 (2017).
`
`Section 1201(a) instructs the Librarian to consider several factors in the
`
`exemption process: (i) the availability for use of copyrighted works; (ii) the
`
`availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational
`
`purposes; (iii) the impact of the anti-circumvention rule on criticism, comment, news
`
`reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research; and (iv) the effect of circumvention of
`
`technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1201(a)(1)(C). In addition, the Librarian may consider “such other factors as the
`
`Librarian considers appropriate.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C)(v).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2029193 Filed: 11/29/2023 Page 20 of 66
`
`In implementing Section 1201(a), the Copyright Office and the Librarian have
`
`also imposed additional requirements. JA20-21 ¶ 33. Those include:
`
`● Placing the burden on the party seeking an exemption to establish that their
`
`speech should be permitted. The Office explained that because the
`
`“‘prohibition [of section 1201(a)(1)] is presumed to apply to any and all
`
`kinds of works’ until the Librarian determines that the requirements for the
`
`adoption of an exemption have been met with respect to a particular class
`
`of works,” the burden remains on the creators seeking exemptions. JA20
`
`¶ 33(a) (citing U.S. Copyright Office, Sixth Triennial Proceeding to
`
`Determine Exemptions
`
`to
`
`the Prohibition on Circumvention,
`
`Recommendation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Register
`
`of Copyrights,
`
`(“2015
`
`Recommendation”),
`
`at
`
`13-15)
`
`(October
`
`28,
`
`2015),
`
`https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/.
`
`● Placing the burden on applicants to demonstrate a widespread impact on
`
`noninfringing uses with factual and legal support, rather than a less
`
`burdensome showing of impact on the applicant’s own speech. JA20
`
`¶ 33(b) (citing 2015 Recommendation at 16).
`
`● Requiring evidence that people are already engaging in circumvention,
`
`inviting criminal and other legal jeopardy. JA20 ¶ 33(c); JA56, U.S.
`
`Copyright Office, Section 1207 of Title 17: A Report of the Register of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159