USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 1 of 38
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`Case 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.
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS,
`INC., ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, MOTION
`PICTURE ASSOCIATION, INC., RECORDING INDUSTRY
`ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND NEWS / MEDIA ALLIANCE IN
`SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
`
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
`Case No. 1:16-cv-01492-EGS
`Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN MATTHEW DEWEESE WILLIAMS
`LUCY HOLMES PLOVNICK
`Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP
`1818 N Street, N.W., 7th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 355-7900
`Email: mxw@msk.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`Corporate Disclosure Statement
`Pursuant to Circuit Rule 26.1, Amici Curiae state that they have no parent
`
`corporations and that no publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity
`
`owns ten percent (10%) or more of any amicus organization.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`Certificate as to Parties, Rulings Under Review, and Related Cases
`
`(a) Parties and Amici. Except for the entities listed herein and any amici curiae
`
`who have not yet entered an appearance in this Court, all parties, intervenors,
`
`and amici appearing before the district court are listed in the Briefs for
`
`Appellants and Appellees.
`
`(b) Rulings Under Review. The rulings under review were made by the United
`
`States District Court for the District of Columbia, Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan, in
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-01492-EGS:
`
`1. Order and Opinion Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’
`
`Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25) (June 27, 2019);
`
`2. Minute Order Granting Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (May 9,
`
`2023).
`
`(c) Related Cases. This case was previously before this Court on appeal as Case
`
`No. 21-5195. To our knowledge, there are no other related cases currently
`
`pending in this Court or in any other court.
`
`DATED: February 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John Matthew DeWeese Williams
`John Matthew DeWeese Williams
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 4 of 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`Corporate Disclosure Statement ....................................................................... i
`Certificate as to Parties, Rulings Under Review, and Related Cases .......... ii
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 9
`I.
`BECAUSE SECTION 1201 ENCOURAGES FREE EXPRESSION,
`THE STATUTE IS CONSISTENT WITH COPYRIGHT’S
`TRADITIONAL CONTOURS .............................................................. 9
`A.
`Section 1201 Encourages the Creation and Dissemination
`of Expressive Works ................................................................... 12
`Congress Has Power to Define the Limits of Fair Use ............ 19
`Section 1201’s Rulemaking Procedure Ensures that the
`Statute Conforms to Copyright’s Traditional Contours ........ 20
`EVEN ASSUMING SECTION 1201 TRIGGERS HEIGHTENED
`SCRUTINY, THE COURT SHOULD APPLY INTERMEDIATE
`SCRUTINY ........................................................................................... 26
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 27
`Certificate of Compliance ............................................................................... 28
`Certificate of Service ....................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 5 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................. 27
`
`Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) ...................................................................................... 10, 27
`
`Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal,
`286 U.S. 123 (1932) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Golan v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 302 (2012) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) ........................................................................................ 26
`
`Green v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
`392 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D. C. 2019) ..................................................................... 27
`
`Green v. United States Dep’t of Just.,
`54 F.4th 738 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 26
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .................................................................................... 4, 9, 12
`
`MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 10, 19
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) ............................................................................ 8, 10, 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 6 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Stewart v. Abend,
`495 U.S. 207 (1990) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken,
`422 U.S. 151 (1975) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`United States v. Elcom Ltd.,
`203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .............................................................. 27
`
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
`111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ............................................................ 1, 27
`
`Universal City Studios v. Corley,
`273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 9, 25
`
`STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C.
`§1201 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`§1201(a) .............................................................................................................. 14
`§1201(a)(1)(C) ........................................................................................ 14, 20, 21
`§1201(a)(2) ......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Act of 1891, Ch. 565, § 4952, 26 Stat. 1107 ........................................................... 11
`
`Act of Aug. 24, 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-303, ch. 356, sec. 5, § 5(l)–(m),
`37 Stat. 488, 488 (1912)...................................................................................... 11
`
`Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436 ................................................................... 11
`
`Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198 ................................................................ 11
`
`Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124 ................................................................. 11
`
`Pub. L. No.
`92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971) ................................................................................ 11
`96-517 (1980)...................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 7 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`101-650, 701,703, 104 Stat 5128, 5133 (1990) .................................................. 11
`105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) ............................................................................ 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`88 Fed. Reg. at 42891 (July 5, 2023) ....................................................................... 23
`
`Chapter 12 of Title 17, Hearing before the Subcomm. on Courts,
`Intellectual Property and the Internet of the H. Comm. On the
`Judiciary, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 17, 2014) ....................................... 16, 17
`
`DAVID BLACKBURN, ET. AL., U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, IMPACTS
`OF DIGITAL PIRACY ON THE U.S. ECONOMY (June 2019) ...................................... 6
`
`ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION, 2023 ESSENTIAL FACTS
`ABOUT THE COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY (2023) ............................. 18
`
`H.R. REP. NO. 105‐551, pt. 2 (1998) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Library of Congress U.S. Copyright Office
`DMCA Section 1201(a)(1) Hearing, written statement of Dean
`Marks (May 18-19, 2000) ................................................................................... 15
`
` Public Roundtable on Section 1201 (May 19 and 25, 2016) ........................ 17, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 1201 Roundtable (Apr. 12, 2018) .......................................................... 16
`
`Section 1201 of Title 17: A Report of the Register of Copyrights
`(June 2017) .............................................................................................. 17, 22, 24
`
`Section 1201 Rulemaking Hearing before the Copyright Office
`Panel (May 17, 2012) ................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Section 1201 Rulemaking: Eighth Triennial Proceeding to
`Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention
`(October 2021) .............................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 8 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, 2022 REVIEW OF
`NOTORIOUS MARKETS FOR COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY (Jan. 31,
`2023) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, YEAR-END 2022
`RIAA REVENUE STATISTICS (2023) .................................................................... 18
`
`ROBERT STONER AND JÉSSICA DUTRA OF ECONOMISTS INCORPORATED,
`PREPARED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`ALLIANCE (IIPA), COPYRIGHT INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S. ECONOMY:
`THE 2020 REPORT 3 (2020) ................................................................................... 6
`
`S. REP. NO. 105‐190, 8 (1998) ................................................................................. 12
`
`STAFF OF THE H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 105TH CONG., SECTION-
`BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2281 AS PASSED BY THE U.S. H. OF
`REP. ON AUGUST 4, 1998, at 6 (Comm. Print 1998) ............................................ 14
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Public voice and principal salesperson for
`notorious videogame piracy group sentenced to 3+ years in prison
`for conspiracy, Feb. 10, 2022 ........................................................................... 4, 6
`
`WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and Online Copyright
`Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2280
`before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the H.
`Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (Sept. 16 and 17,
`1997) ............................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`WIPO Copyright Treaty, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, at 1, 36 I.L.M.
`65 (Geneva, 1997) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-
`17, at 18, 36 I.L.M. 76 (Geneva, 1997) ............................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 9 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAP
`
`DMCA
`
`DRM
`
`ESA
`
`MPA
`
`N/MA
`
`RIAA
`
`TPM
`
`VARA
`
`WIPO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Association of American Publishers
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`
`Digital Rights Management
`
`Entertainment Software Association
`
`Motion Picture Association
`
`News / Media Alliance
`
`Recording Industry Association of America
`
`Technological Protection Measure
`
`Visual Artists Rights Act
`
`World Intellectual Property Organization
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`
`Relevant statutes and regulations are included in the Briefs for Appellants
`
`and Appellees.
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
`The Association of American Publishers, Inc. (“AAP”), the Entertainment
`
`Software Association (“ESA”), the Motion Picture Association, Inc. (“MPA”), the
`
`Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (“RIAA”), and the News/Media
`
`Alliance (“N/MA”) are trade associations whose members create and distribute
`
`some of the highest-value, most significant copyrighted works in the marketplace.
`
`Amici were founded to protect their members’ copyright interests and First
`
`Amendment rights. Amici submit this brief because reversing the district court’s
`
`orders would eviscerate critical safeguards created by Section 1201 (17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1201) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), Pub. L. No. 105-304,
`
`112 Stat. 2860 (1998), and thus undermine copyright’s role as an important
`
`“engine of free expression.” Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 294, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), quoting Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v.
`
`Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985).
`
`AAP represents book, journal, and education publishers in the United States
`
`on matters of law and policy, including major commercial houses, small and
`
`independent houses, and university presses and other noncommercial scholarly
`
`
`1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party
`authored this brief in whole or in part. No party, counsel to any party, or any
`person other than Amici contributed money to fund preparation or submission of
`this brief.
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`publishers. AAP seeks to promote an effective and enforceable framework that
`
`enables publishers to create and disseminate a wide array of original works of
`
`authorship to the public on behalf of their authors and in furtherance of informed
`
`speech and public progress.2
`
`ESA is the U.S. trade association that serves as the voice and advocate for
`
`the U.S. video game industry. Its members are the innovators, creators, publishers,
`
`and business leaders that are reimagining entertainment and transforming how we
`
`interact, learn, connect, and play. ESA works to expand and protect the dynamic
`
`marketplace for video games through innovative and engaging initiatives that
`
`showcase the positive impact of video games on people, culture, and the economy.
`
`The association has an unmatched track record in protecting the industry’s First
`
`Amendment rights and its content from mass infringement.
`
`MPA is the voice of the global film and television industry—a community of
`
`storytellers at the nexus of innovation, imagination, and creativity. In the U.S. and
`
`around the world, the film and television industry drives the creative economy.
`
`
`2 As recent examples of AAP’s dedication to the First Amendment, see Association
`of American Publishers, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms That Texas Book
`Ban Law is Unconstitutional (January 17, 2024), https://publishers.org/news/fifth-
`circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms-that-texas-book-ban-law-is-unconstitutional/; see
`also Association of American Publishers, Court Grants Preliminary Injunction
`Barring Implementation of Arkansas Act 372 (July 31, 2023),
`https://publishers.org/news/court-grants-preliminary-injunction-barring-
`implementation-of-arkansas-act-372/.
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`MPA’s members are Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Netflix Studios, LLC;
`
`Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Universal City
`
`Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
`
`N/MA is a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of more than
`
`2,200 news media organizations in the U.S. and internationally. In total, N/MA’s
`
`membership accounts for nearly 90 percent of the daily newspaper circulation in
`
`the United States, nearly 100 magazine media companies with over 500 individual
`
`magazine brands, and dozens of digital-only properties. The Alliance diligently
`
`advocates for its members on issues including protecting press freedom and
`
`intellectual property rights, and advocating for an open government. The proper
`
`interpretation of copyright’s fair use defense and the DMCA’s protections are
`
`matters of urgent importance to N/MA and its members.
`
`RIAA is a nonprofit trade organization that supports and promotes the
`
`creative and financial vitality of recorded music and the people and companies that
`
`create it in the United States. RIAA’s several hundred members—ranging from
`
`major American music companies with global reach to artist-owned labels and
`
`small businesses—make up the world’s most vibrant and innovative music
`
`community. RIAA’s members create, manufacture, and/or distribute the majority
`
`of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States. In
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`supporting its members, RIAA works to protect the intellectual property and First
`
`Amendment rights of artists and music labels.
`
`The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “the Framers intended
`
`copyright itself to be the engine of free expression.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S.,
`
`539, 558. Since the advent of the digital age and the DMCA’s enactment, Section
`
`1201’s prohibitions against circumvention of access controls and trafficking in
`
`circumvention tools have played—and continue to play—a vital role in furthering
`
`copyright’s crucial role in fostering free speech. Section 1201 helps prevent
`
`devastating piracy and unauthorized access to copyrighted works, preserving the
`
`incentive for content creators and distributors like Amici’s members to continue to
`
`create and disseminate expressive works in the digital marketplace.3 Technological
`
`protection measures also enable copyright owners to design innovative business
`
`models that benefit consumers by enabling lower-cost access to a more diverse
`
`
`3 Regarding the economic costs of piracy, see, e.g., OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE
`REPRESENTATIVE, 2022 REVIEW OF NOTORIOUS MARKETS FOR COUNTERFEITING
`AND PIRACY, at 6 (Jan. 31, 2023), https://ustr.gov/sites/ default/files/2023-
`01/2022%20Notorious%20Markets%20List%20(final).pdf (citing estimated
`impact of digital video piracy alone of “up to 230,000 jobs and $45.7 billion in
`reduced GDP”). For an example that highlights the importance of Section 1201’s
`anti-circumvention provisions, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Public voice and
`principal salesperson for notorious videogame piracy group sentenced to 3+ years
`in prison for conspiracy (Feb. 10, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-
`wdwa/pr/public-voice-and-principal-salesperson-notorious-videogame-piracy-
`group-sentenced-3 (strong anti-piracy victory by DOJ against notorious hackers of
`video games).
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`variety of offerings, including subscription-based access to high-quality, digital
`
`entertainment content; on-demand viewing; downloadable eBooks; cloud-based
`
`storage and sharing; and secure, authenticated video game play.
`
`Over time, each of the industries represented by Amici have relied on
`
`Section 1201 to expand their options for disseminating their content. In the motion
`
`picture industry, studios or their licensees used software on DVDs and Blu-ray
`
`discs that disabled the ability to access the content on unauthorized players or to
`
`copy and distribute it onto computers or over the internet. Today, the studios’
`
`streaming services, whether transactional or subscription-based, deploy content
`
`protection measures on internet and cable/satellite streams. Recorded music was
`
`distributed through services like iTunes that initially encrypted streams and
`
`downloads. Now, services like Spotify and Apple Music offer subscription access
`
`models that protect both time-limited downloads and unlimited streaming access.
`
`DRM has for years protected videogame consoles and content. Consoles like the
`
`Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation and Nintendo Switch use various forms of
`
`technical protection measures, such as authentication software, to prevent piracy
`
`and to ensure a secure delivery platform to provide not only access to video games,
`
`but access to movies and music through various third-party services (including
`
`services such as YouTube and Hulu). Literary works like those published by AAP
`
`and N/MA members have been offered with content protection measures through
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`e-book readers and are now also offered through website access subscriptions that
`
`require authentication and password protection.
`
`The continued vitality of the businesses of Amici’s members directly
`
`depends upon the types of technological protection measures for which Section
`
`1201 provides protection.4 As both copyright owners who use technology to
`
`deliver the digital access sought by consumers and as parties who regularly rely on
`
`the fair use defense, Amici’s members have a unique perspective regarding how
`
`Section 1201—consistent with the traditional contours of copyright—fosters,
`
`rather than hinders, free expression.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Copyright Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, exists to encourage the creation and
`
`dissemination of original works for the general public welfare. Working in tandem
`
`
`4 According to a recent study, copyright industries contributed almost $3 trillion to
`the U.S. economy in 2021. ROBERT STONER AND JÉSSICA DUTRA, SECRETARIAT
`ECONOMISTS, PREPARED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`ALLIANCE (IIPA), COPYRIGHT INDUSTRIES IN THE U.S. ECONOMY: THE 2022 REPORT
`8 (2022), https://www.iipa.org/files/uploads/2020/12/2020-IIPA-Report-FINAL-
`web.pdf In that year, core copyright industries accounted for 52.26% of the U.S.
`digital economy, while total copyright industries accounted for 64.87% of that
`value added. Id. at 9. Another study concluded that global online piracy of motion
`pictures alone costs the U.S. economy at least $29.2 billion in lost revenue each
`year. DAVID BLACKBURN, ET. AL., U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, IMPACTS OF
`DIGITAL PIRACY ON THE U.S. ECONOMY (June 2019),
`https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Digital-Video-
`Piracy.pdf.
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 16 of 38
`
`
`with the First Amendment, copyright promotes free speech. This salutary purpose
`
`depends on ensuring that copyright holders receive a fair return for investing in the
`
`creation of their copyrighted works. In our digital age, a single pirated, perfect
`
`copy of a copyrighted work can find its way onto the internet, where billions of
`
`people can access, reproduce, and distribute the infringing work without cost.
`
`Streaming video services, digital newspaper subscriptions, and unlimited streaming
`
`music services have become some of the most popular platforms on the internet
`
`and on mobile devices. Unauthorized access to these services gravely undermines
`
`the viability of these platforms. To encourage the development of these kinds of
`
`consumer-friendly content offerings, Congress enacted Section 1201, which,
`
`consistent with centuries-old precedent, expanded the rights of copyright owners
`
`where necessary to preserve and further copyright’s core objectives.
`
`Congress enacted this new safeguard to encourage the development of these
`
`kinds of consumer-friendly, content offerings. The economic harm to the
`
`copyright owner resulting from unauthorized access and concomitant widespread
`
`infringement increases the owner’s cost of disseminating expressive works,
`
`making access to those works more difficult for many cost-conscious consumers.
`
`Since the statute’s enactment more than twenty-five years ago, the free speech
`
`benefits resulting from Section 1201’s protections have been legion. In
`
`challenging the constitutionality of Section 1201, Appellants and their supporting
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 17 of 38
`
`
`amici ignore copyright’s unique role in fostering the dissemination of creative
`
`content for the public’s benefit.
`
`Section 1201 does not trigger heightened scrutiny. Because of copyright’s
`
`free speech underpinnings, courts confronted with First Amendment challenges to
`
`copyright statutes give greater deference to Congress’s enactments. Indeed, the
`
`Supreme Court has recognized that Congress may sometimes limit or modify uses
`
`previously held to have been a fair use. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City
`
`Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 454 (1984) (“Sony-Betamax”). Moreover, Section
`
`1201’s prohibitions are consistent with the long-established principles that a
`
`copyright owner has the right to limit publication or not to publish at all; and that
`
`one who improperly gains access to a copyrighted work (just like stealing a book
`
`from a bookstore or home by picking the lock and breaking in) may not invoke fair
`
`use as a defense. Finally, copyright law’s history is replete with examples where
`
`Congress has expanded copyright owners’ exclusive rights to further copyright’s
`
`free speech objective. Section 1201 and its rulemaking procedure in no way alter
`
`copyright’s traditional contours but rather enhance them.
`
`Even if Section 1201 triggered some type of heightened scrutiny,
`
`intermediate scrutiny—or something lower—would apply: no court has concluded
`
`that Section 1201 is content-based. Indeed, this Court concluded that the statute is
`
`not content-based in the prior appeal in this case. And all courts considering the
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 18 of 38
`
`
`issue have concluded that the statute is constitutional. The statute serves a
`
`substantial governmental interest: encouraging dissemination of expressive works
`
`consonant with free speech principles by preventing piracy and unauthorized
`
`access. The statute encourages, rather than suppresses, speech by allowing
`
`copyright owners to exploit new technologies without fear of rampant piracy and
`
`unauthorized access. And the statute places minimal or no burden on speech by
`
`virtue of the rulemaking procedure and legitimate alternative avenues of access to
`
`copyrighted works. Fair use does not entitle a user to take from the user’s
`
`preferred digital version of a work. See Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d
`
`429, 459 (2d Cir. 2001). Amici urge that the Court affirm the district court’s
`
`judgment.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`BECAUSE SECTION 1201 ENCOURAGES FREE EXPRESSION,
`THE STATUTE IS CONSISTENT WITH COPYRIGHT’S
`TRADITIONAL CONTOURS
`“By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright
`
`supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” Harper & Row,
`
`471 U.S., 539, 558, citing Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 209 (1954) (Copyright
`
`posits that “encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to
`
`advance public welfare”); Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151,
`
`156 at 2043 (1975) (The ultimate aim of copyright is “to stimulate [the creation of
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 19 of 38
`
`
`useful works] for the general public good.”) (cleaned up). “Evidence from the
`
`founding, moreover, suggests that inducing dissemination—as opposed to
`
`creation—was viewed as an appropriate means to promote science.” Golan v.
`
`Holder, 565 U.S. 302, 326 (2012) (emphasis in original). As the Court has made
`
`clear:
`
`“The Copyright Clause and First Amendment were adopted close in
`time. This proximity indicates that, in the Framers' view, copyright's
`limited monopolies are compatible with free speech principles.
`Indeed, copyright's purpose is to promote the creation and publication
`of free expression.”
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219 (2003). Moreover, “[a]s the text of the
`
`Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining
`
`the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors
`
`in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.” Sony-
`
`Betamax, 464 U.S. 417, 429. Accord, Eldred, 537 U.S. 186, 190, (“The Copyright
`
`Clause … empowers Congress to define the scope of the substantive right.…
`
`Judicial deference to such congressional definition is but a corollary to the grant to
`
`Congress of any Article I power.”) (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas
`
`City, 383 U.S. 1, 6 (1966)).
`
`Section 1201 is consistent with Congress’s historical pattern of granting
`
`additional rights to copyright holders in the face of technological change and in
`
`that way encouraging the creation and dissemination of free expression. See MDY
`
`
`
`16235449.2
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`USCA Case #23-5159 Document #2039789 Filed: 02/09/2024 Page 20 of 38
`
`
`Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 946 (9th Cir. 2010) as amended
`
`on denial of reh'g (Feb. 17, 2011), opinion amended and superseded on denial of
`
`reh'g, No. 09-15932, 2011 WL 538748 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011) (Section 1201
`
`“granted copyright owners a new weapon against copyright infringement”). Since
`
`the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress has granted copyright
`
`owners new rights when necessary to advance copyright’s free speech objectives.
`
`The 1790 Act originally granted authors of maps, charts, and books “the sole right
`
`and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending” their original works.
`
`Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124. Over the ensuing centuries, Congress
`
`legislated to protect new categories of works, including musical works (Act of Feb.
`
`3, 1831, ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436); photographic works (Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16
`
`Stat. 198); certain derivative works (Act of 1891, Ch. 565, § 4952, 26 Stat. 1107);
`
`motion pictures (Act of Aug. 24, 1912, Pub. L. No. 62-303, ch. 356, sec. 5, § 5(l)–
`
`(m), 37 Stat. 488, 488 (1912)); sound recordings (Pub. L. No. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391
`
`(1971)); computer software (Pub. L. No. 96-517 (1980)); and architectural works
`
`(Pub. L. No. 101-650, 701,703, 104 Stat 5128, 51