AUG ~ No. 10-94 In the Supreme Court of the United States WHITNEY HARPER, Petitioner, V. MAVERICK RECORDING COMPANY; UMG RECORDINGS INC.; WARNER BROTHERS RECORDS INC.; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit BRIEF OF CHARLES NESSON, NED SNOW, RAY BECKERMAN, MICHAEL RUSTAD, RAYMOND KU, RALPH D. CLIFFORD, ROBERT HEVERLY, LLEWELLYN JOSEPH GIBBONS, MALLA POLLACK, AND CAROLINE WILSON AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Charles Nesson Counsel of Record for Amici 1525 Massachusetts Ave., G501 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4609 Blank Page MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Amici curiae respectfully move for leave of Court to file the accompanying brief. Counsel for both parties have been given notice and consented to its filing. As stated below in the full text of the Statement of Interest, Amici are professors, scholars, and practitioners of law who are concerned with the integrity of copyright law and with assuring that enforcement of copyright holders’ rights is justly balanced against considerations for those who might infringe unknowingly. Respectfully submitted, CHARLES NESSON Counsel of Record for Amici 1525 Massachusetts Ave., G501 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4609 TABLE OF CONTENTS MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ....................................1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................3 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..............6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................9 I. A Brief History of Innocent Infringement ..................14 A. The Introduction of Notice Requirements in Anglo-American Copyright Law ................................ 16 B. The Necessity of Culpable Mental State in EarlyStatute and Jurisprudence .............................. 19 C. Continuing Consideration for Unknowing Infringement over the Twentieth Century ............... 22 D. The Berne Convention .....................................25 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................27 SIGNATURE PAGE ..............................................................................30 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ............................................31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bartlett v. Crittenden, 2 F. Cas. 967, 969 (C.C.D. Ohio 1849) (No. 1,076) ................................................................................. 20 BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005) .............................................................................................................. 8 D.C. Comics, Inc. v. Mini Gift Shop, 912 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1990) ............................................................................................... 11 Daly v. Palmer, 6 F. Cas. 1132 (S.D.N.Y. 1868) .................... 20 Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 623 (C.C.D. Mass. 1845) (No. 4,437) ............................................................................................... 20 Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) (Baldwin, J., dissenting) ....................................................................................... 17, 18 Statutes 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) ............................................................................... 9, 25 17 U.S.C. § 402(c) .................................................................................... 10 17 U.S.C. § 402(d) ........................................................................... passim Act of April 29, 1802, ch. 36 § 1, 2 Stat. 171, 171 (repealed 1831) ........................................................................................................... 18 Act of Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 356 § 25(b) ............................................ 21 Copyright Act of 1790 (repealed 1831) ........................................ Copyright Act of 1790 § 3 (repealed 1831) ................................ Copyright Act of 1831 (repealed 1870) ........................................ 21 Copyright Act of 1831 (Act of Feb. 8, 1831), ch. 16 § 7, 4 Stat. 436, 438) (repealed 1870) ................................................... 21 Copyright Act of 1909 (repealed 1976) ................................. 22, 23 Copyright Act of 1909, ch. 320 § 20 (repealed 1976)....22, Copyright Act of 1976 .................................................................... 23, 24 Copyright Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2541, 2578, § 405(b) (1976) Copyright Act of 1976, 90 Star. 2541, 2578, § 406(a) (1976) Miscellaneous H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976) ................................................. 23, 24 H.R. REP. NO. 100-609 (1988) ........................................................ 25 Lawrence Lessig, Copyright’s First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. REV. 1057, 1061 (2001) ........................................................... Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, § 7.02(c)(3)(2009) .............................................. 26 R. Anthony Reese, Innocent Infringement in U.S. Copyright Law, 30 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW & THE ARTS, 133 (2007) ..................................................... 14, 15, 17 Ralph Oman, The Impact of the Berne Convention on U.S. Copyright, 455 PLI/Pat 233, 237 (1996) ................................ 25 S. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 86TH CONG., 2D SESS., COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION: STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, STUDY NO. 17, THE REGISTRATION OF COPYRIGHT 15 (Comm. Print 1960) .............................................................................................. 22 S. REP. NO. 100-352 (1988), as reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3706, 3740-41 ......................................................... 26 Statute of Anne, 1710, 8 Ann. C. 19 (Eng.) ............... 15, 17, 20 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Amici Curiae are professors, scholars, and practitioners of law who specialize in the intersection of law, technology, and copyright. Amici join in this brief in their individual capacity and not as representatives of any institutions or organizations with which they are affiliated. Charles Nesson is the William F. Weld Professor of Law at Harvard Law School as well as a Founder and Faculty Co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Ned Snow is an Associate Professor of Law at University of Arkansas. He specializes in Property, Advanced Copyright, and Law & the Internet. He is also the faculty advisor to the Arkansas Law Review. Ray Beckerman is an attorney at law whose practice includes entertainment, copyright, and internet law among many others. He is a respected analyst and commentator on the R.I.A.A.’s litigation campaign through his blog "Recording Industry vs. the People." Michael Rustad is the Thomas F. Lambert Jr. Professor of Law and Co-Director of Intellectual 1. No counsel affiliated with either party to this case authored the brief nor made any monetary contribution. 6 Property Law Concentration at Suffolk University Law School. Raymond Ku is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He is also the Co-Director of the Center for Law, Technology, & the Arts. Ralph D. Clifford is a Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law where he teaches Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property with an emphasis on the applicability of copyright to new technology. Robert Heverly is an Assistant Professor of Law at Albany Law School of Union University. Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons is an Associate Professor of Law at University of Toledo College of Law. Malla Pollack is co-author of Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademark, and Monopolies (4th ed.) Caroline Wilson is a Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Southampton School of Law, Highfield Campus. She is a Founding Member of the Institute for Law and the Web at Southampton. Amici are concerned with the integrity of copyright law and with assuring that enforcement of copyright holders’ rights is justly balanced against the longstanding policy of shielding unknowing infringers of copyright from the imposition of excessive liability. This case raises substantial questions about the application of statute to defeat any consideration of innocence of intent in imposing statutory damages for infringement. We are particularly concerned that this case, if unreviewed, will affirm the Seventh Circuit’s unprecedented assertion that a downloader cannot claim innocent infringement because she "readily could have learned, had she inquired, that the music was under copyright.’’2 As a consequence, the absurd conclusion is reached whereby notice in the record stores, never seen by the infringer, is sufficient to put a digital user, in his or her home, on notice of copyright liability. o BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) provides for an innocent intent response to allegations of copyright infringement. The so-called "innocent infringer" defense is not a defense against a finding of infringement. "Innocent infringers" are still liable for infringement, but a court may recognize proven innocence of intent by reducing the minimum statutory penalty if the defendant sustains the burden of proving she "was unaware and had no reason to believe" her actions infringed upon a copyright (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)). The