Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 NO. 11-2620 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT BROWNMARK FILMS, LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. COMEDY PARTNERS, MTV NETWORKS, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, SOUTH PARK DIGITAL STUDIOS, LLC, and VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 10-cv-1013 JPS Honorable J.P. Stadtmueller, District Judge BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE Julie P. Samuels (ARDC# 6287282) Corynne McSherry Michael Barclay ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellate Court No: 11-2620 Short Caption: Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, et al. To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1. The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party's main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used. [ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NEW OR REVISED AND INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED. (1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P 26.1 by completing item #3): Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation (2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court: Julie P. Samuels, Corynne McSherry and Michael Barclay (3) If the party or amicus is a corporation: i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and None ii) list any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock: None Attorney's Signature: /s/ Julie P. Samuels Date: December 19, 2011 Attorney's Printed Name: Julie P. Samuels Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No Address: Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, California 94110 Phone Number: (415) 493-9333 ext. 112 Fax Number: (415) 436-9993 E-Mail Address: [email protected] rev. 01/08 AK i Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................. ii STATEMENT OF INTEREST ........................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................. 2 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 4 I. The Ability to Dismiss a Case on Fair Use Grounds Supports the Essential Copyright Balance ..................................................................... 4 A. Dismissing Obvious Fair Use Cases at the Pleading Stage Helps Deter Abuses of the Copyright System ............................................ 4 1. Righthaven LLC ...................................................................... 4 2. Mass Copyright Litigation ....................................................... 7 B. Early Dismissals Helps Protect Individual Fair Users Confronted With Frivolous Lawsuits and Improper DMCA Takedowns ......... 10 C. Early Dismissal Fosters Timely Political Speech ........................... 12 II. Fair Use is an Essential Part of the Copyright Balance ............................. 16 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 19 i Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................. 14 Assoc. of Am. Medical Colleges v. Cuomo, 928 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1991) ..................................................................... 18 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ................................................................................. 17 CP Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-300, Case No. 1:10-cv-6255 (N.D. Ill.) ............................................................. 9 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ................................................................................. 17 Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ................................................................................. 16 K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-85, Case No. 3:11-cv-469 (E.D. Va.) ............................................................... 9 On the Cheap, LLC v. Does 1-5011, Case No. 3:10-cv-04472 (N.D.Cal.) ..................................................... 9-10 Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................... 18 Penelope v. Brown, 792 F. Supp. 132 (D. Mass. 1992) ........................................................... 19 Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC, Case No. 2:10-cv-1356 (D. Nev.) .......................................................... 5, 6 Righthaven LLC v. Gardner, Case No. 1:11-cv-00777 (D. Colo.) ........................................................... 5 ii Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 Righthaven LLC v. Hill, Case No. 1:11-cv-00211 (D. Colo.) ....................................................... 5, 6 Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-1036 (D. Nev.) .............................................................. 7 Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Case No. 3:07-cv-06076 (N.D. Cal.) ....................................................... 16 Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) ................................................................................. 14 Sony Corp. v. Universal Music Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ................................................................................. 18 Stewart v. Abend, 495 U. S. 207 (1990) ................................................................................ 17 Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975) ................................................................................. 16 Statutes 17 U.S.C. § 106 .................................................................................................. 18 17 U.S.C. § 107 .............................................................................................. 2, 18 17 U.S.C. §§ 107-122 ......................................................................................... 16 17 U.S.C. § 512 ............................................................................................. 11-12 Other Authorities Center for Democracy & Technology, Campaign Takedown Troubles: How Meritless Copyright Claims Threaten Online Political Speech (Sept. 2010) ........................................................................................................ 14 Nate Anderson, Copyright troll Righthaven’s epic blunder: a lawsuit targeting Ars, Ars Technica (March 29, 2011) .......................................................... 6 Sarah Purewal, Copyright Trolls: 200,000 BitTorrent Users Sued Since 2010, PCWorld (August 9, 2011) ........................................................................ 8 iii Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 Treatises 4 W. Patry, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT, Thomson Reuters/West (2011) .................. 17 P. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1105 (1990) ......... 18 Constitutional Provision U.S. CONST., ART. I, § 8, cl. 8 ............................................................................ 17 iv Case: 11-2620 Document: 18-2 Filed: 12/19/2011 Pages: 27 STATEMENT OF INTEREST1 Amicus curiae submits this brief pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 29(b). Defendants-Appellees Comedy Partners, et al. (“Comedy Partners” or “Appellees”) consent to the filing of the brief. Plaintiff-Appellant Brownmark Films, LLC (“Brownmark”) does not consent. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization that has worked for more than 20 years to protect consumer interests, innovation, and free expression in the digital world. EFF and its almost 15,000 dues-paying members have a strong interest in assisting the courts and policymakers in striking the appropriate balance between copyright law and the public interest. As part of its mission, EFF often represents individuals