Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page1 of 43
`
`12-4547-cv
`
`United States Court Of Appeals
`for the
`Second Circuit
`THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., et al.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`v.
`HATHITRUST, et al.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, et al.,
`Intervenor Defendants-Appellees.
`(Full Caption and List of Amici Joining this Brief Provided on Inside Cover)
`
`
`
`
`
`ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE HIGHER EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS IN
`SUPPORT OF APPELLEES HATHITRUST, ET AL., AND AFFIRMANCE
`
`Bruce G. Joseph
`Karyn K. Ablin
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K St. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`Ada Meloy
`General Counsel
`American Council
`on Education
`One DuPont Circle, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 939-9300
`
`June 4, 2013
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page2 of 43
`
`THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., THE AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF AUTHORS
`LIMITED, UNION DES ECRIVAINES ET DES ECRIVAINS QUEBECOIS,
`ANGELO LOUKAKIS, ROXANA ROBINSON, ANDRE ROY, JAMES
`SHAPIRO, DANIELE SIMPSON, T.J. STILES, FAY WELDON, THE
`AUTHORS LEAGUE FUND, INC., AUTHORS’ LICENSING AND
`COLLECTING SOCIETY, SVERIGES FORFATTARFORBUND, NORSK
`FAGLITTERAER FORFATTERO OG OVERSETTERFORENING, THE
`WRITERS’ UNION OF CANADA, PAT CUMMINGS, ERIK GRUNDSTROM,
`HELGE RONNING, JACK R. SALAMANCA,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`v.
`HATHITRUST, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, MARY SUE COLEMAN, President,
`University of Michigan, MARK G. YUDOF, President, The University of
`California, KEVIN REILLY, President, The University of Wisconsin System,
`MICHAEL MCROBBIE, President, Indiana University,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`
`NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, GEORGINA KLEEGE,
`BLAIR SEIDLITZ, COURTNEY WHEELER,
`Intervenor Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION,
`ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, ASSOCIATION OF
`PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES, AMERICAN
`ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES,
`AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES, THE
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND
`UNIVERSITIES, AND EDUCAUSE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
`HATHITRUST, ET AL., AND AFFIRMANCE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page3 of 43
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26.1 and 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
`
`Procedure, amici American Council on Education, Association of American
`
`Universities, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, American
`
`Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of
`
`Community Colleges, the National Association of Independent Colleges and
`
`Universities, and EDUCAUSE each states that it is a non-profit association, with
`
`no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more
`
`of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page4 of 43
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI.............................................................................................. 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 2 
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
`I. 
`
`FAIR USE IS INTEGRAL TO COPYRIGHT’S PUBLIC INTEREST
`GOAL OF PROMOTING THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE –
`UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE –
`AND THE FAIR USE FACTORS MUST BE ANALYZED IN
`LIGHT OF THIS PURPOSE. ......................................................................... 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Enact Copyright
`Laws for the Public Purpose of Promoting Learning, Not for the
`Private Benefit of Authors. ................................................................... 6 
`
`Congress Implemented the Public Purpose of Copyright by
`Creating Significantly Circumscribed Rights. ..................................... 8 
`
`Fair Use Is an Integral Part of Copyright Law, Essential To
`Fulfilling the Constitution’s Purpose of Promoting Learning. ............ 9 
`
`Fair Use Should Be Construed To Advance Copyright’s Public
`Purposes. ............................................................................................. 10 
`
`II. 
`
`THE PURPOSE OF THE CHALLENGED USES HEAVILY
`FAVORS FAIR USE – EDUCATION, SCHOLARSHIP, AND
`RESEARCH ARE CORE PUBLIC INTERESTS THAT ARE
`SYNONYMOUS WITH THE PROMOTION OF KNOWLEDGE
`AND LEARNING. ....................................................................................... 11 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Copyright Act Expressly Favors the Challenged Uses. .............. 12 
`
`The Public Has a Strong Interest in Fostering Higher Education,
`and the Educational Uses Challenged in this Case Confer
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page5 of 43
`
`
`Fundamental Public Benefits Central to the Purpose of the
`Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. ..................................... 13 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Public’s Vital Interest in Higher Education Is an
`American Article of Faith. ....................................................... 13 
`
`The Right To Acquire Knowledge and Learning Is an
`Essential Right Protected by the First Amendment and,
`Therefore, by Fair Use. ............................................................ 19 
`
`The Challenged Uses Are Instrumental in Fulfilling
`These Core Public Values and Are Too Important To
`Subject to Narrow, Limited Private Interests. ......................... 21 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`The HDL Dramatically Expands Opportunities for
`Education, Research, and Scholarship by Enabling
`Scholars To Conduct Full-Text Searches and Text
`Analysis. ........................................................................ 21 
`
`The HDL Dramatically and Uniquely Expands
`Educational Opportunities for the Print Disabled,
`Promoting the Goals of the Copyright Clause and
`the Public Policy of the United States. .......................... 23 
`
`The HDL’s Preservation Function Ensures that its
`Member Institutions Will Continue To Provide the
`Benefits Described Above and Safeguards the
`Future Progress of Science Against the
`Deterioration or Destruction of Books. ......................... 26 
`
`C. 
`
`Plaintiffs’ Arguments Against Fair Use Are Misguided. ................... 28 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 31 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 32 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 33 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page6 of 43
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms LLC,
`562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 30
`
`American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.,
`802 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) .................. 29
`
`American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.,
`60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................................................... 11, 29
`
`Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.,
`448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 10
`
`Blanch v. Koons,
`467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 5
`
`Board of Education v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) ...................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`Brown v. Board of Education,
`347 U.S. 483 (1954) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) .............................................................................. 5, 9, 13, 29
`
`Cariou v. Prince,
`__ F.3d __, No. 11–1197–cv, 2013 WL 1760521 (2d Cir. Apr. 25,
`2013) ............................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2002) ............................................................................ 6, 12, 20, 21
`
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 517 (1994) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page7 of 43
`
`
`Golan v. Holder,
`132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) .................................................................................. 6, 8, 20
`
`Grutter v. Bollinger,
`539 U.S. 306 (2003) ...................................................................................... 14, 16
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
`336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Kleindienst v. Mandel,
`408 U.S. 753 (1972) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Martin v. City of Struthers, Ohio,
`319 U.S. 141 (1943) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Meyer v. Nebraska,
`262 U.S. 390 (1923) .................................................................................. 3, 14, 19
`
`Mueller v. Allen,
`463 U.S. 388 (1983) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute,
`364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 5, 13
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Plyler v. Doe,
`457 U.S. 202 (1982) ................................................................................ 14, 15, 17
`
`Sarl Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder, Inc.,
`489 F.3d 474 (2d Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 20-21
`
`Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................................................................... 7, 8, 30
`
`Stanley v. Georgia,
`394 U.S. 557 (1969) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page8 of 43
`
`
`Sundeman v. Seejay Society, Inc.,
`142 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
`268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 5, 6
`
`Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
`354 U.S. 234 (1957) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken,
`422 U.S. 151 (1975) .......................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,
`334 U.S. 131 (1948) .......................................................................................... 2, 7
`
`Wheaton v. Peters,
`33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.,
`953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991) ......................................................................... 12, 13
`
`CONSTITUTIONS
`
`U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8 ................................................................................ 2, 5, 6
`
`STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 107-122 ........................................................................................ 8
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 .............................................................................................. 9, 12, 13
`
`17 U.S.C. § 108 ........................................................................................................ 28
`
`17 U.S.C. § 121 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12101 .................................................................................................... 25
`
`Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124 ............................................................ 6
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`142 Cong. Rec. S 9061(daily ed. July 29, 1996) ..................................................... 26
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page9 of 43
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (2012) ................ 12
`
`Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in
`Pennsylvania (1749), available at
`http://www.archives.upenn.edu/primdocs/1749proposals.html ......................... 16
`
`Cultural incineration: 80 years since Nazi book burnings, available at
`http://www.dw.de/cultural-incineration-80-years-since-nazi-book-
`burnings/a-16798958 .......................................................................................... 27
`
`Jing Liao, A Historical Perspective: The Root Cause for the
`Underdevelopment of User Services in Chinese Academic Libraries, 30 J.
`Acad. Librianship 109 (Mar. 2004) .................................................................... 27
`
`Orrin Hatch & Thomas Lee, “To Promote the Progress of Science”; The
`Copyright Clause and Congress’s Power To Extend Copyrights, 16 Harv.
`J.L. & Tech. 1 (2002) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Oxford Online Dictionary, available at
`http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/
`american_english/scholarship?q=scholarship .................................................... 11
`
`Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990) ......... 10
`
`President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (Feb. 12, 2013),
`available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
`office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address ................................. 18
`
`President George H.W. Bush, State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 1992),
`available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=20544 ........... 18
`
`President George W. Bush, The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate (Oct.
`13, 2004), available at http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-
`13-2004-debate-transcript ................................................................................... 18
`
`Remarks by the President on College Affordability, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
`University of Michigan (Jan. 27, 2012), available at
`http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/27/remarks-
`president-college-affordability-ann-arbor-michigan .................................... 17, 18
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page10 of 43
`
`
`Remarks by the President on Higher Education and the Economy at the
`University of Texas at Austin (Aug. 9, 2010), available at
`http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/09/remarks-
`president-higher-education-and-economy-university-texas-austin .................... 14
`
`Remarks of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the TIME Higher
`Education Summit (Oct. 18, 2012), available at
`http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/remarks-us-secretary-education-arne-
`duncan-time-higher-education-summit ............................................................... 15
`
`Sandy Baum & Jennifer Ma, Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher
`Education for Individuals and Society (2007), available at
`http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/trends/e
`d_pays_2007.pdf ........................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`The Library of Alexandria: Center of Learning in the Ancient World xi (Roy
`McLeod ed. 2004) ............................................................................................... 27
`
`The Writings of James Madison (Gaillard Hunt ed. 1900), available at
`http://www.justice.gov/oip/foiapost/2008foiapost12.htm .................................. 15
`
`Walter McMahon, Higher Learning, Greater Good: The Private Social
`Benefits of Higher Education 217-23 (2009) ............................................... 16-17
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1981) ........................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page11 of 43
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI
`
`The American Council on Education, Association of American Universities,
`
`Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, American Association of
`
`Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
`
`National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and EDUCAUSE
`
`submit this brief as amici curiae in support of appellees.1 Amici are seven non-
`
`profit associations whose members include the great majority of U.S.-based public
`
`and private colleges and universities. The associations represent all sectors of
`
`higher education – public and private, large and small. They regularly submit
`
`amicus briefs in cases raising legal issues important to higher education and seek to
`
`foster high standards in higher education, believing that a strong higher education
`
`system is the cornerstone of a democratic society.2
`
`The copyright fair use issues presented here profoundly affect the public-
`
`interest mission of amici and their members, a mission that the Supreme Court has
`
`described as one of “supreme importance.” The effort of the Authors Guild and its
`
`amici to distort the copyright fair use right into a narrow exception that does not
`
`encompass the hugely beneficial non-profit educational activities of HathiTrust and
`
`1 No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party or its counsel
`or anyone other than amici, their members, and their counsel contributed money
`intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief.
`2 EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association and the foremost community of
`information technology leaders and professionals committed to advancing higher
`education.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page12 of 43
`
`
`the university defendants would greatly impede teaching, learning, research, and
`
`scholarship – the very “Progress of Science” that the Constitution commands
`
`copyright law to promote. Amici have a fundamental interest in protecting the
`
`higher education system against this result.
`
`Amici offer this brief to present fair use in its proper context, as an integral
`
`tool for achieving the Constitution’s goal in granting Congress the power to enact
`
`copyright laws, and to amplify the defendants’ showing that the challenged uses
`
`are fair uses. All parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact copyright laws for a
`
`specific purpose – “to promote the Progress of Science.” U.S. Const. art 1, § 8, cl.
`
`8. The term “the Progress of Science” is understood to refer broadly to the
`
`creation and spread of knowledge and learning.
`
`It is well-settled that the rights granted by Congress to accomplish this
`
`purpose are granted to serve the public interest, not the copyright owner’s private
`
`gain. “The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a
`
`secondary consideration.” United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S.
`
`131, 158 (1948). Thus, copyright rights are carefully limited, and those limitations
`
`are a structural part of the statutory balance necessary to accomplish copyright’s
`
`constitutional purpose. Fair use is one of the most important limitations on
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page13 of 43
`
`
`copyright rights, long recognized as an essential means of: (i) ensuring that
`
`copyright law does not stifle the very learning that it is designed to promote; (ii)
`
`promoting the public interest; and (iii) securing important First Amendment goals.
`
`Given its importance, fair use is not properly viewed as a narrow exception
`
`to exclusive property rights; rather, it is an integral part of copyright law and one
`
`means by which that law accomplishes its goals of serving the public interest and
`
`promoting the spread of learning. Fair use must be construed in light of those
`
`goals.
`
`Educational uses, particularly non-profit educational, scholarship, and
`
`research uses expressly referenced in section 107 of the Copyright Act, are
`
`strongly favored in fair use analysis. Indeed, the public interest in higher education
`
`is undeniable – “[t]he American people have always regarded education and
`
`acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be
`
`diligently promoted.” See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923).
`
`Education is the foundation of citizenship and democracy and the source of
`
`enormous benefits for society, the economy, and the individual. Moreover, the
`
`right to obtain knowledge and information is an essential First Amendment right,
`
`and fair use is a primary means by which copyright law protects First Amendment
`
`interests.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page14 of 43
`
`
`The HathiTrust Digital Library (“HDL”) facilitates education in numerous
`
`ways. First, it fosters traditional modes of education, research, and scholarship by
`
`enabling researchers quickly to identify relevant works. More fundamentally, it
`
`transforms scholarship, research, and education by enabling scholars to seek,
`
`identify, and analyze broad trends in art, literature, and science across time,
`
`continents, and disciplines.
`
`The HDL also enormously expands educational opportunities for the print
`
`disabled, eliminating for the first time the severe disadvantage that they have
`
`historically faced in research, scholarship, and learning. Finally, the HDL
`
`preserves humanity’s accumulated learning for future generations of scholars. The
`
`HDL offers these enormous public benefits entirely because of the contribution of
`
`the university defendants and their technology partners, without adversely
`
`affecting any traditional or reasonably exploitable market for the works that are
`
`digitized.
`
`In the words of Judge Baer, “I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that
`
`would not encompass the transformative uses made by Defendants’ MDP [Mass
`
`Digitization Project] and would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution
`
`to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts that at the same time
`
`effectuates the ideals espoused by the ADA.” Op. and Order, ECF No. 156, at 22
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page15 of 43
`
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012) (“Op.”). Judge Baer was right. This Court should affirm
`
`his judgment.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`FAIR USE IS INTEGRAL TO COPYRIGHT’S PUBLIC INTEREST
`GOAL OF PROMOTING THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE –
`UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE – AND
`THE FAIR USE FACTORS MUST BE ANALYZED IN LIGHT OF
`THIS PURPOSE.
`
`As the Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly recognized, fair use
`
`must be analyzed “in light of the purposes of copyright.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
`
`Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578 (1994); see, e.g., Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244,
`
`251 (2d Cir. 2006); NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471, 482 (2d Cir.
`
`2004); accord Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1260 (11th
`
`Cir. 2001) (courts must apply fair use factors in light of the history and purpose of
`
`the Constitution’s Copyright Clause).
`
`Copyright’s core purpose is defined by the Constitution, which empowers
`
`Congress to grant copyright rights to foster the creation and spread of knowledge
`
`and learning. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 8. Copyright exists to promote the
`
`public interest, not the private interests of authors. Judged in the context of those
`
`purposes, each of the uses challenged in this case is fair use.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page16 of 43
`
`
`A. The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Enact Copyright Laws
`for the Public Purpose of Promoting Learning, Not for the Private
`Benefit of Authors.
`
`Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power
`
`“[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
`
`Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
`
`and Discoveries.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the power to enact copyright laws
`
`exists for a specific purpose – “to promote the Progress of Science.”3
`
`The “‘Progress of Science’ ... refers broadly to ‘the creation and spread of
`
`knowledge and learning.’” Golan, 132 S. Ct. 873, 888 (2012); accord Eldred v.
`
`Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 245 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (describing “the basic
`
`Clause objective” as “‘promot[ing] the Progress of Science,’ i.e., knowledge and
`
`learning”); Orrin Hatch & Thomas Lee, “To Promote the Progress of Science”;
`
`The Copyright Clause and Congress’s Power To Extend Copyrights, 16 Harv. J.L.
`
`& Tech. 1, 7 (2002) (“Everyone agrees that the notion of ‘science’ in the founding
`
`era referred generally to all forms of knowledge and learning.”).4
`
`
`3 “Perhaps counterintuitively for the contemporary reader, Congress’ copyright
`authority is tied to the progress of science; its patent authority, to the progress of
`the useful arts.” Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 888 (2012). This is clear from
`the clause’s parallel structure.
`4 The English Statute of Anne, which “[t]he Framers of the U.S. Constitution relied
`on ... when drafting the Copyright Clause of our Constitution,” was “introduced as
`‘[a]n act for the encouragement of learning.’” Suntrust, 268 F.3d at 1260 & n.4.
`The first U.S. Copyright Act was similarly entitled “[a]n Act for the
`encouragement of learning.” Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page17 of 43
`
`
`The Supreme Court consistently has emphasized that the ultimate goal of
`
`copyright is to serve the public interest, not the author’s private interest:
`
`The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither
`unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit.
`Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public
`purpose may be achieved.
`
`Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984); accord
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 526 (1994) (“[T]he monopoly privileges
`
`that Congress has authorized ... must ultimately serve the public good.”). Indeed,
`
`“[t]he copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a
`
`secondary consideration.” Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. at 158; accord Feist
`
`Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) (observing that
`
`“[t]he primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labors of authors”).
`
`Copyright rights are granted to authors to induce them to create and to
`
`disseminate their creations. See, e.g., Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. at 158
`
`(“[R]eward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the
`
`products of his creative genius.”); Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 526 (copyright is “intended
`
`to motivate the creative activity of authors”). “But the ultimate aim is, by this
`
`incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” Twentieth
`
`Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). Moreover, “[e]vidence
`
`from the founding ... suggests that inducing dissemination – as opposed to creation
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page18 of 43
`
`
`– was viewed as an appropriate means to promote science.” Golan, 132 S. Ct. at
`
`888.
`
`B. Congress Implemented the Public Purpose of Copyright by
`Creating Significantly Circumscribed Rights.
`
`Congress has exercised its constitutional power to promote knowledge and
`
`learning by creating carefully circumscribed copyright rights. Plaintiffs attempt to
`
`paint the HDL as a “taking [of] their property.” Br. for Pls.-Appellants, ECF No.
`
`54, at 1 (Feb. 25, 2013) (“Appellants’ Br.”). They are wrong. Copyright rights are
`
`not absolute property rights but statutory creations subject to important limitations
`
`that further the constitutional goal. E.g., 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 107-122. “The
`
`limited scope of the copyright holder’s statutory monopoly ... reflects a balance of
`
`competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and
`
`rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting
`
`broad public availability of literature.” Aiken, 422 U.S. at 156.
`
`From the beginning, the Supreme Court consistently has held that copyright
`
`is not grounded in any theory of the author’s natural right. It is solely a creature of
`
`statute, and the scope of the right is strictly limited by the statutory grant. Wheaton
`
`v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 659-64, 667-68 (1834); Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 429
`
`n.10 (observing that copyright law “is not based upon any natural right” of the
`
`author and describing the balance between the public benefit from “stimulat[ing]
`
`the producer” and the public detriment from “the evils of the temporary
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page19 of 43
`
`
`monopoly.” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1909)). This
`
`Court has agreed, observing that “copyright is not an inevitable, divine, or natural
`
`right that confers on authors absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed
`
`rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment
`
`of the public.” Cariou v. Prince, __ F.3d __, No. 11–1197–cv, 2013 WL 1760521
`
`at *4 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2013) (quoting Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard,
`
`103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1107 (1990)).
`
` In other words, the limitations in the Copyright Act do not contravene any
`
`natural order or property right. Rather they are a structural part of the balanced
`
`means by which Congress fulfills its constitutional mandate to promote knowledge
`
`and learning. They should be construed on equal footing with, and as broadly as,
`
`the underlying rights.
`
`C.
`
`Fair Use Is an Integral Part of Copyright Law, Essential To
`Fulfilling the Constitution’s Purpose of Promoting Learning.
`
`One of the most important limitations in copyright law is the fair use right,
`
`on which this case turns. 17 U.S.C. § 107. “From the infancy of copyright
`
`protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought
`
`necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose … .” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 575.
`
`According to Judge Leval, “Fair use should be perceived not as a disorderly basket
`
`of exceptions to the rules of copyright, nor as a departure from the principles
`
`governing that body of law, but rather as a rational, integral part of copyright,
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 12-4547, Document 151, 06/04/2013, 955765, Page20 of 43
`
`
`whose observance is necessary to achieve the objectives of that law.” Pierre Leval,
`
`Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1107 (1990). In response to
`
`the rhetorical question “why allow fair use,” Judge Leval explains:
`
`First, all intellectual creative activity is in part derivative. There is no
`such thing as a wholly original thought or invention. Each advance
`stands on the building blocks fashioned by prior thinkers. Second,
`important areas of intellectual activity are explicitly referential.
`Philosophy, criticism, history, and even the natural sciences require
`continuous reexamination of yesterday’s theses.
`
`Monopoly protection of intellectual property that impeded referential
`analysis and the development of new ideas out of old would strangle
`the creative process.
`
`Id. at 1109.
`
`D.
`
`Fair Use S